kristopher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #98 |
| 99. All right, you've sucked me in. |
|
"Current global primary energy use is increasing at about 2%/yr6, and apart from short-term variations is likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. Following the assumptions of Ref. <7> we assume a constant growth rate of 1%/yr with a transition to a zero-carbon energy economy based on electrical generation, occurring during the period up to 2100. As a baseline for considering a transition to renewable technologies, we first evaluate a scenario where this transition is based on nuclear and/or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, assuming an electrical generation efficiency of 35-50%.8 ... Zweibel et al propose a strategy to transform the US energy economy from its current fossil-fuel rich mix to one dominated by solar power7. In their scenario fuel costs are kept at acceptable values, and total energy production grows by 1%/yr during the course of this century. Now compare that to what our own little Sean Hannity is basing his criticism on: "...Incidentally, expecting energy use to increase exponentially until the end of time is ludicrous..."
paper: "...during the course of this century"
Hannity: "...until the end of time"
paper: "...during the course of this century"
Hannity: "...until the end of time"
paper: "...during the course of this century"
Hannity: "...until the end of time"
It is the same thing with all of your attempted arguments. In the case of the batteries, the issue wasn't the theoretical limit of lithium, the issue was your false claim that current generation lithium batteries cannot be improved. Your claim was and is false. It is there, in the rocord for anyone that cares (can't really imagine anyone does). Then we have your pathetic attempt to deny the way opportunity costs are calculated. You have no basis for your criticism of Jacobson except to claim that doing it right is somehow wrong. No basis in fact or reason, just the claim.
That is exactly the type of "argumentation" Sean Hannity and his ilk employ.
|
| -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 |