Environment & Energy

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)

2. Sup Kris

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:36 AM

Jan 2013

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

We wondered where you'd been. We thought about calling your house to see if you were dead.

Even though we're not BFFs or anything, when you vanish, we worry.

Also, this place has had a lot of trolls lately. We need help.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear power and the French energy transition: It’s the economics, stupid! [View all] kristopher Jan 2013 OP

Exit economics: The relatively low cost of Germany's nuclear phase-out kristopher Jan 2013 #1

And part of the economics is that German lignite is cheap muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #5

Implication vs reality kristopher Jan 2013 #6

German carbon emissions from electricity generation went up in 2011 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #7

"greenhouse gas emissions should be of primary interest" kristopher Jan 2013 #9

Uh, no, the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #37

Your characterization of that information is untrue. kristopher Feb 2013 #40

My "characterization" comes directly from the sources Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #41

"the German electricity sector is becoming ever more dependent on coal" kristopher Feb 2013 #42

Sup Kris XemaSab Jan 2013 #2

du rec. nt xchrom Jan 2013 #3

Welcome back, n/t CRH Jan 2013 #4

Thank you. nt kristopher Feb 2013 #36

Coal is economical. joshcryer Jan 2013 #8

Unfortunately it is. kristopher Jan 2013 #10

A tax. joshcryer Feb 2013 #11

"Externalize the cost of coal"?? kristopher Feb 2013 #12

I should have said "address the external costs of coal." joshcryer Feb 2013 #13

Think about your "belief" kristopher Feb 2013 #14

You've been saying that for years. joshcryer Feb 2013 #15

Why would people burn coal when it will cost less to use renewables? kristopher Feb 2013 #17

Well, sure, they wouldn't, if it did. joshcryer Feb 2013 #22

Price trends are unequivocal. kristopher Feb 2013 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #16

"all the energy that is economical to use" kristopher Feb 2013 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #19

re: Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #21

Your second clause is specifically rejected by Harris kristopher Feb 2013 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #27

I didn't think you were being critical kristopher Feb 2013 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #24

"Increase efficiency when energy sources are limiting" kristopher Feb 2013 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Feb 2013 #29

That's odd, GG. kristopher Feb 2013 #31

I realized I wasn't ready to start discussing this yet, for a variety of reasons. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32

Well, we have to concede that anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE NNadir Feb 2013 #33

"anti-nuke ignorance, fear, and superstition HAVE"... kristopher Feb 2013 #34

You can't admit that anti-nuke ignorance/fear/superstition EXIST FBaggins Feb 2013 #35

Even after Fukushima, twice as many French support nuclear power as are against wtmusic Feb 2013 #38

How many want to transition away from nuclear? kristopher Feb 2013 #39

I always thought the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was written by scientists wtmusic Feb 2013 #43

You ARE the person who was promoting the fictional... kristopher Feb 2013 #44

You have distinct memories of that, do you? wtmusic Feb 2013 #45

That's a very convenient memory lapse kristopher Feb 2013 #46

And a scathing critique it is. wtmusic Feb 2013 #47

You have to admit your standards of what constitute "science" are very subjective kristopher Feb 2013 #48