You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #95: Sure, have at it [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Sure, have at it
Download at:

Global warming is a consequence of temperature forcing, a net imbalance
between energy fluxes entering and leaving the global climate system and energy
generation within this system. Humanity introduces positive forcings through
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, agriculture, and increasingly thermal emissions -
heat released as a result of energy generation and use. Up to now, climate change
projections have neglected thermal emissions, and typically assume a peak in
forcing due to GHG emissions around the middle of this century1,2. Here we show
that, if humanitys future energy use grows at just 1% per year, slower than in
recent history, and if thermal emissions are not controlled through changes in
technology, the total forcing due to all emissions will not peak and decline
significantly as currently predicted, but after a slight dip will continue to rise. This
problem can be combated by geoengineering3 and mitigated by renewable energy
sources that minimize waste heat. Such approaches could be combined in
reflective wide-bandgap photovoltaic technology, which offers the possibility of a
strong negative temperature forcing together with electrical power generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Nuclear and ethanol least effective climate change solutions kristopher  Dec-07-08 01:57 PM   #0 
  - how does nuclear power add to global warming?  QuestionAll   Dec-07-08 02:02 PM   #1 
  - Magic  Pigwidgeon   Dec-07-08 02:08 PM   #2 
  - The study looks not only at direct CO2e contributions, but  kristopher   Dec-07-08 02:19 PM   #3 
  - Nuclear is so expensive, that the relative benefit is much smaller per buck  greenman3610   Dec-07-08 02:22 PM   #5 
  - That's true, but  kristopher   Dec-07-08 02:26 PM   #6 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-07-08 04:21 PM   #14 
     - Well, Stanford and MIT agree with me  greenman3610   Dec-07-08 07:25 PM   #29 
        - Actually he scores pretty low on IQ tests.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 07:36 PM   #30 
  - According to the paper...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 02:57 PM   #8 
  - I have it on file in pdf via email.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 03:48 PM   #9 
     - I'm noting the exact opposite, actually.  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 03:57 PM   #10 
        - It's in the summary provided in the OP.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 04:02 PM   #11 
        - Thought so. nt  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 04:09 PM   #12 
           - Don't fib...  kristopher   Dec-07-08 04:25 PM   #16 
              - Well, as I said...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 04:36 PM   # 
                 - What is there to respond to?  kristopher   Dec-07-08 04:44 PM   #18 
                 - Here is the relevant section; have at it...  kristopher   Dec-07-08 04:52 PM   #19 
                    - Which translates into figures thusly:  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 05:07 PM   #21 
                       - Here is the "supporting text"  kristopher   Dec-07-08 05:15 PM   #24 
                       - not artificially deflating would be a start.  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 07:10 PM   #27 
                          - So far you've provided exactly 0 valid criticisms.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 07:22 PM   #28 
                             - Sigh  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 07:43 PM   #31 
                             - Attacking the messenger isn't a valid criticism.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 07:55 PM   #32 
                                - Oh dear...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 08:27 PM   #33 
                                   - That wasn't your assertion  kristopher   Dec-07-08 09:09 PM   #35 
                                      - You still seem be to be confused  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 09:59 PM   #41 
                                         - Back up a few more posts.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 10:14 PM   #44 
                                         - Are we talking about the same thread?  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 10:26 PM   #46 
                             - I'm more in agreement with the parrot.  Citizen Number 9   Dec-09-08 01:27 AM   #60 
                                - I don't see the basis for your claim  kristopher   Dec-09-08 01:54 AM   #61 
                                - Google the guy, he works with windmill venture capitalists.  joshcryer   Dec-11-08 04:24 PM   #88 
                       - " The opportunity-cost emissions of the least-emitting technology is, by definition, zero."  bananas   Dec-07-08 05:18 PM   #26 
                          - then why are the opportunity costs for 3 different technologies rated at zero?  QuestionAll   Dec-08-08 11:25 PM   #56 
                             - I wish he would explain the "adjusted for < 1.0" comment.  joshcryer   Dec-09-08 12:56 AM   #58 
                             - I take it that it is me you are misquoting?  kristopher   Dec-09-08 01:23 AM   #59 
                                - Sorry if you felt I misquoted you.  joshcryer   Dec-09-08 06:30 AM   #64 
                                   - So you reject the idea of opportunity cost?  kristopher   Dec-09-08 08:01 AM   #67 
                                   - No, I think it is unfair to cite three technologies as having equal (0) opportunity cost.  joshcryer   Dec-10-08 01:47 AM   #76 
                                      - Yeah, science is often called unfair by people with an agenda,  kristopher   Dec-10-08 07:00 AM   #79 
                                         - What is my agenda?  joshcryer   Dec-11-08 04:20 PM   #84 
                                   - The methodology for opportunity cost from delays is described in section 4b  bananas   Dec-09-08 06:22 PM   #74 
                                      - He makes assumptions about his CSP/Solar-PV/windfarm baseline.  joshcryer   Dec-10-08 02:00 AM   #78 
                                         - tell you what...  kristopher   Dec-10-08 07:22 AM   #80 
                                            - He doesn't have sources for 3 of the technologies listed.  joshcryer   Dec-11-08 04:18 PM   #83 
                                            - I don't need to insult you.  kristopher   Dec-11-08 04:20 PM   #85 
                                            - No, I think I'm being quite civilized compared to you guys.  joshcryer   Dec-11-08 04:23 PM   #87 
                             - Well, that's easy.  Dead_Parrot   Dec-09-08 03:53 AM   #62 
        - .  XemaSab   Dec-09-08 12:02 AM   #57 
           - But what if he wuz teh kitteh instead?  Gentle Giant   Dec-10-08 08:11 AM   #82 
  - Imagination. When you can't do real science, you make stuff up.  NNadir   Dec-07-08 04:18 PM   #13 
  - Jacobson has a lot of papers published in peer reviewed journals.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 04:24 PM   #15 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Dec-07-08 04:36 PM   #17 
     - NNadir is fluff - he's just a pretender.  bananas   Dec-07-08 05:09 PM   #22 
  - NNadir is an expert at making stuff up - he does it all the time.  bananas   Dec-07-08 05:14 PM   #23 
  - I love  kristopher   Dec-07-08 05:18 PM   #25 
  - The Charlatan NJ Molten Salt Breeder Reactor is "made up"  jpak   Dec-07-08 09:50 PM   #39 
  - If you have bad brain chemicals - make stuff up  jpak   Dec-12-08 08:51 AM   #91 
     - If you've exceeded your doctor prescribed limit of three thoughts per month,  Gentle Giant   Dec-17-08 09:15 PM   #100 
  - Complete lifecycle emissions include construction, mining, enrichment, etc  bananas   Dec-07-08 05:04 PM   #20 
  - why aren't those same costs applied to wind and solar...?  QuestionAll   Dec-07-08 08:49 PM   #34 
     - They are applied. Or can't you read.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 09:12 PM   #36 
        - i guess not- because i don't see anything in the op or bananas post to that effect...  QuestionAll   Dec-07-08 09:41 PM   #37 
           - Please forgive my snippy attitude  kristopher   Dec-07-08 09:49 PM   #38 
              - why do wind and solar have ZERO "Opportunity cost emissions due to delays" ?  QuestionAll   Dec-07-08 09:58 PM   #40 
                 - I retract the apology  kristopher   Dec-07-08 10:02 PM   #42 
                 - They have zero cost if you subtract the cost  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 10:08 PM   #43 
                 - Poor little feller just ain't right in the head....  kristopher   Dec-07-08 10:20 PM   #45 
                 - Since the nukenut is trying to cloud your understanding, here...  kristopher   Dec-07-08 10:35 PM   #47 
                 - Of course, you still haven't explained why.  Dead_Parrot   Dec-07-08 11:13 PM   #48 
                 - There is nothing to explain.  kristopher   Dec-07-08 11:23 PM   #49 
                 - It's OK, Kris...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-08-08 12:23 AM   #50 
                 - Hey, this is interesting...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-08-08 01:25 PM   #53 
                 - you're the one that seems wrong to me...  QuestionAll   Dec-09-08 10:55 AM   #71 
                    - Of coourse you have no basis for that conclusion...  kristopher   Dec-09-08 11:45 AM   #72 
                 - "Opportunity cost" is an economics term which is ALWAYS EXACTLY ZERO for the least-cost item  bananas   Dec-08-08 02:29 PM   #54 
                    - then why is more than one of the items rated at zero?  QuestionAll   Dec-08-08 11:24 PM   #55 
                    - If two or more items have the same delay, then they have the same cost of delay  bananas   Dec-09-08 06:03 PM   #73 
                       - Actually, PV, tidal, and wave are baselined on CSP.  joshcryer   Dec-10-08 01:52 AM   #77 
                          - Actually you don't know what you are talking about.  kristopher   Dec-10-08 07:24 AM   #81 
                             - Posting a page of text does not invalidate what I have said.  joshcryer   Dec-11-08 04:21 PM   #86 
                    - Let's be honest, he's being arbitrary.  joshcryer   Dec-09-08 06:44 AM   #65 
                       - No, he's being complete.  bananas   Dec-09-08 06:35 PM   #75 
  - It isn't included in this paper  kristopher   Dec-17-08 02:43 AM   #93 
     - Well, post it up when you find it  Dead_Parrot   Dec-17-08 03:19 AM   #94 
        - Sure, have at it  kristopher   Dec-17-08 01:37 PM   #95 
           - Awesome  Dead_Parrot   Dec-17-08 06:32 PM   #96 
              - I forgot, you're the person that only knows how to read investor brochures...  kristopher   Dec-17-08 07:15 PM   #97 
                 - lol  Dead_Parrot   Dec-17-08 08:11 PM   #98 
                    - All right, you've sucked me in.  kristopher   Dec-17-08 08:53 PM   #99 
                       - Err, dude...  Dead_Parrot   Dec-17-08 09:22 PM   #101 
                          - Er, Sean...  kristopher   Dec-17-08 11:57 PM   #102 
                             - Oh, for pity's sake.  Dead_Parrot   Dec-18-08 12:47 AM   #103 
                                - Oh for pity's sake Sean...  kristopher   Dec-18-08 01:01 AM   #104 
                                   - OK, there must be some rendering difference  Dead_Parrot   Dec-18-08 01:46 AM   #105 
  - ethanol based on Fungus is extraordinarily efficient, Rice straw can produce an equal weight in food  sam sarrha   Dec-07-08 02:20 PM   #4 
  - plant sugars distilled into gasoline....  madrchsod   Dec-07-08 02:29 PM   #7 
  - Not to mention the fact that geoagriculture is responsible for a lot of water loss.  joshcryer   Dec-12-08 04:14 AM   #90 
  - Abstract and Supplementary Information  bananas   Dec-08-08 02:15 AM   #51 
  - Thank you for posting this.  joshcryer   Dec-08-08 04:31 AM   #52 
  - mispost  joshcryer   Dec-09-08 06:28 AM   #63 
  - I thought nuclear's CO2 problem was with uranium mining  HamdenRice   Dec-09-08 07:47 AM   #66 
  - He isn't focused on opportunity cost.  kristopher   Dec-09-08 08:09 AM   #68 
     - Unless the CO2 emission required to mine and process uranium are a lot higher  HamdenRice   Dec-09-08 08:50 AM   #69 
        - Have you troubled yourself to read the paper?  kristopher   Dec-09-08 09:01 AM   #70 
  - So having read the paper 4 times over, consulted slides, I believe he's correct, politically...  joshcryer   Dec-12-08 04:12 AM   #89 
     - Thank you for the link to the slides. I hadn't seent them and they are informative.  kristopher   Dec-15-08 12:16 AM   #92 
        - Yeah, it's going to be great. I think nuclear is going the way of the dodo.  joshcryer   Dec-18-08 02:38 AM   #106 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC