Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

8. What is the significance of that, OK?

Sat Feb 18, 2012, 08:15 PM

Feb 2012

Are you back to arguments by insinuation again? It is a good way to avoid rebuttals when you aren't confident of what your position is, I suppose.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

More than 68% of New European Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011 [View all] kristopher Feb 2012 OP

Greece would be perfect for solar energy. Lots of sun. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #1

An even better graph from the same article ... Nihil Feb 2012 #2

Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin kristopher Feb 2012 #3

Actually, coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin ... Nihil Feb 2012 #5

The determinant is the operational characteristic within a generation and delivery system. kristopher Feb 2012 #6

You need to look at the entire system, including production OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #7

What is the significance of that, OK? kristopher Feb 2012 #8

Nihil said, �coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin� OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #9

This shows why explicit statements are important. kristopher Feb 2012 #10

Uh huh� OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #11

Uh huh... You're arguing by insinuation yet again. kristopher Feb 2012 #12

The facts of the matter are OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #13

"The facts of the matter"? kristopher Feb 2012 #14

The issue we are confronted with is anthropogenic climate change OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #15

You clearly don't appreciate the meaning of the word "strategy" kristopher Feb 2012 #16

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever XemaSab Feb 2012 #25

"If we're going to go with the restaurant analogy" kristopher Feb 2012 #27

I read post 26 XemaSab Feb 2012 #30

What does the term "operational characteristics" mean to you? kristopher Feb 2012 #31

I understand that from a grid perspective they're similar XemaSab Feb 2012 #32

You are not correct. kristopher Feb 2012 #33

If "fracking is severely curtailed" then I don't see much NG for electrical generation. joshcryer Feb 2012 #36

No, it doesn't. kristopher Feb 2012 #37

Since you seem to demand it of us XemaSab Feb 2012 #38

I want data, I want to see that it's actually being pursued, not fantasy plans that... joshcryer Feb 2012 #40

Why don't you make a meaningful response to post 31? kristopher Feb 2012 #41

I did. I showed that greenwashing natural gas is not going to transition us away from fossil fuels. joshcryer Feb 2012 #52

No one said it was. kristopher Feb 2012 #71

Fracking is absolutely necessary to "meet the needs we might have during a transition." joshcryer Feb 2012 #39

Lots of sniping and ranting; absolutely devoid of substance related to the topic of transition kristopher Feb 2012 #42

I already told you, we don't. Convince me we do. We don't. The evidience is we don't. I gave it. joshcryer Feb 2012 #49

Really? kristopher Feb 2012 #53

Yep, a nice reduction. joshcryer Feb 2012 #55

And how does that change? kristopher Feb 2012 #58

Yes, they will be replaced, when the coal is getting all used up. joshcryer Feb 2012 #59

Still unwilling to provide a proper citation? kristopher Feb 2012 #61

A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge kristopher Feb 2012 #43

Not reflected in the data and projections I showed. Just fantasy talk. joshcryer Feb 2012 #50

How do we transition? kristopher Feb 2012 #44

Not the route we're taking. joshcryer Feb 2012 #51

The OP and your own charts from WEO show you're wrong kristopher Feb 2012 #54

You haven't read WEO. joshcryer Feb 2012 #56

Don't just hurl accusations, give details. kristopher Feb 2012 #57

The chart is not flawed, the chart is specific. The EU and US will reduce coal consumption. joshcryer Feb 2012 #60

Provide a citation in the TEXT. kristopher Feb 2012 #62

My interpretation of data is perfectly fine, as you've provided no evidence I am wrong. joshcryer Feb 2012 #63

Just as I thought. kristopher Feb 2012 #64

You're the one quoting Lovins saying Congress isn't needed. joshcryer Feb 2012 #65

*Why* does Lovins say that Congress isn't needed? kristopher Feb 2012 #66

Because he has a fantasy solution that isn't reflected in any real world trajectory. joshcryer Feb 2012 #68

WTF is a "real world trajectory"? kristopher Feb 2012 #70

Yes, we are discussing how we have the wrong energy policy and planning. joshcryer Feb 2012 #76

You and your robot factories show that you are completely clueless kristopher Feb 2012 #78

Not at all, I think the magical robot factories are just as useful as any other "future planning"... joshcryer Feb 2012 #80

You haven't got a clue about how economics work kristopher Feb 2012 #82

Can you establish where I am wrong that we will export the coal? joshcryer Feb 2012 #83

If fossil fuels are replaced by better. cheaper renewables... kristopher Feb 2012 #85

Countries that have other industries that use coal? joshcryer Feb 2012 #89

You've acknowledged we can do it in advanced countries with subsidies kristopher Feb 2012 #90

Erm, right wing garbage. Making people pay externalized costs is not a subsidy. joshcryer Feb 2012 #93

Because he's a greenwashing capitalist? joshcryer Feb 2012 #77

You've shown nothing, Josh. kristopher Feb 2012 #79

Please stop insulting me, I showed graphs with regards to natural gas. joshcryer Feb 2012 #81

That is a perfect example of why my remark isn't an insult. kristopher Feb 2012 #84

Uh, you do realize those electronics are so cheap because they're built in unregulated sectors... joshcryer Feb 2012 #86

Sorry but you are still not getting it. kristopher Feb 2012 #87

You aren't substantiating anything. Did or did not coal exports go up? joshcryer Feb 2012 #88

Are you seriously saying that a snapshot of today supports your assertions about the future? kristopher Feb 2012 #91

Yes, because the data I provided is a "snapshot of today," it's not years of trending. joshcryer Feb 2012 #92

just curious backwoodsbob Feb 2012 #34

Like many things, it depends on how it is done OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #35

Ah, so we've got to the "waffle and smear" stage from you (again)? Nihil Feb 2012 #17

Explain how nuclear power enables a transition to a noncoarbon energy infrastructure. kristopher Feb 2012 #18

Why? As stated many times before, humans are not to be trusted with nuclear power. Nihil Feb 2012 #24

In other words you can't answer the question without showing you are being misleading. kristopher Feb 2012 #26

In other words you can't reply without lying. Nihil Feb 2012 #28

??? kristopher Feb 2012 #29

So you have no problem with the ramping up of coal & gas? Nihil Feb 2012 #45

Why do you have so much trouble just making an honest argument? kristopher Feb 2012 #46

I'm not the one who is dodging the facts by constantly raising the "nuclear" red herring. Nihil Feb 2012 #47

I already replied to your quesiton kristopher Feb 2012 #48

No, you've just concentrated on dodging it (and did it again there) Nihil Feb 2012 #69

You seem to be laboring under the impression that you're the only one being coherent here XemaSab Feb 2012 #67

"clean natural gas" joshcryer Feb 2012 #19

Similar challenge to you kristopher Feb 2012 #20

Heh, I'm too cynical to express that right now. joshcryer Feb 2012 #21

That's an evasion... kristopher Feb 2012 #22

I don't think it will. There will be no tangible transition. We will use up almost all fossil fuels. joshcryer Feb 2012 #23

"We're going to burn almost all of it up. That's what I think." ellisonz Feb 2012 #94

NNNOOOOOooooo !!!!11111 jpak Feb 2012 #4

Why solar...... jcs0007 Feb 2012 #72

Why "Why solar..."? kristopher Feb 2012 #73

Way to roll out the welcome mat, dude. nt Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #74

Welcome to DU and E/E Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #75