Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

58. And how does that change?

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 07:59 PM

Feb 2012

Those plants will become obsolete, and less expensive noncarbon alternatives will be selected to replace them. We can accelerate the process by first focusing on developing the manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains for renewables to position them with attractive pricing and then tighten the screws on fossil fuels by forcing a full internalization of those costs they now successfully externalize.

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