Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

OKIsItJustMe

(19,937 posts)

10. No, you choose to claim it is irrelevant

Reply to NoOneMan (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

Jan 2013

You simply cannot fundamentally change any large system instantaneously (short of destroying it.) It will be a process. You need to start somewhere. 50% of new generating capacity is a good place to start.

Did you read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112734257

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Renewable Energy Revolution: Declining Costs, Surging Capacity [View all] Ghost Dog Jan 2013 OP

K&R jpak Jan 2013 #1

K&R daleanime Jan 2013 #2

“Renewable power generation now accounts for around 50% of all new power generation capacity…” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #3

Does it? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #4

Even if we manage to reduce the carbon intensity of our energy supply GliderGuider Jan 2013 #5

Or, quite simply, we get off of our butts and do something about it OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #8

Do your best! GliderGuider Jan 2013 #17

EROEI below 5:1 Terry in Austin Jan 2013 #25

Try this: GliderGuider Jan 2013 #27

Yes, it does say something… OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #7

I don't care. Its irrelevant NoOneMan Jan 2013 #9

No, you choose to claim it is irrelevant OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author NoOneMan Jan 2013 #11

If aggregate emissions continue to increase, nothing else matters. Nothing. Nada. Zilch NoOneMan Jan 2013 #12

“We start when aggregate emissions begin to drop.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #13

No, we are kicking the can down the road and further screwing our situation NoOneMan Jan 2013 #14

I agree, we delayed acting for too long OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #15

Actually 0% *could* work. You are looking at this incorrectly NoOneMan Jan 2013 #16

That may be the wrong question. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #18

Its a rhetorical question NoOneMan Jan 2013 #23

It's the only sensible conclusion one could come to. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #24

In truth, a 0 carbon emissions level is not enough OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #19

"We both know that is not going to happen" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #22

What's the assumed capacity factor? GliderGuider Jan 2013 #6

There has to be an energy-efficiency factor too. Ghost Dog Jan 2013 #20

Oh, it's all good GliderGuider Jan 2013 #21

This message was deleted by the cat on the keyboard. n/t 2on2u Jan 2013 #26

Keyboard Cats, huh? Ghost Dog Jan 2013 #28