Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

40. Your characterization of that information is untrue.

Reply to Yo_Mama (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:38 PM

Feb 2013

I've already dealt with it in post 6.

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