|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 07:47 AM Original message |
Worldwide nuclear energy diminishing; "Peak nuclear energy" was in 2006 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 08:04 AM Response to Original message |
1. While wind and solar installations grow *exponentially* each year, stupid nuclear is in eclipse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 10:29 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. There are a large number of new starts for nuclear world wide |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 10:35 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. but reactor retirements are greater than new commissionings |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 10:58 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. Not true. Currently 56 GW under construction. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 11:00 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Umm - new commissions are outstripping retirements and that is why nuclear is declining? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 11:12 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. Constructions starts are ramping up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 02:37 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 02:40 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. as of 2007. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 02:42 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Good thing you aren't a rocket scientist... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 02:48 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. 2007 is not 2010. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 02:49 PM Response to Reply #10 |
11. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 01:20 AM Response to Reply #6 |
17. They know that capacity is going to grow. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 09:27 AM Response to Reply #17 |
25. It's also an insult to Hubbert. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 11:49 AM Response to Reply #25 |
26. Lastly Hubbert work was on physical limitations. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:40 PM Response to Reply #26 |
30. "What M. King Hubbert might say today" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:43 PM Response to Reply #26 |
31. "The Seminal Hubbert article: Leading Edge Magazine, February 1983" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 07:06 PM Response to Reply #26 |
35. Peak uranium was prophesied by M. King Hubbert in the Holy Scriptures |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 07:19 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. A piece of friendly advice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 11:46 AM Response to Reply #36 |
45. Wrong - figure 27 clearly shows a peak in uranium production.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:06 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. Nope... it shows a GRAPHICAL "peak" in "Uranium For Inventory" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 03:03 PM Response to Reply #25 |
32. An insult to Hubbert? You are VERY misinformed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 03:47 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. Nope. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 01:22 AM Response to Reply #4 |
18. I wish China was more serious about cutting emissions, though. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 03:29 PM Response to Original message |
12. Hey all you anti-nukes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 04:37 PM Response to Reply #12 |
13. It was 2006 - nice try! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 07:56 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. Ok then, 2006 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 01:23 AM Response to Reply #15 |
19. Sucker bet. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 10:50 PM Response to Reply #15 |
41. *Crickets* |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 11:00 AM Response to Reply #41 |
43. I didn't take your proposal seriously |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 11:05 AM Response to Reply #43 |
44. Pretty funny it only took you 3 days to disprove your own claim. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:02 PM Response to Reply #44 |
46. Nope - there was a peak in 2006 - that's a fact. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:07 PM Response to Reply #46 |
48. Only to the extent that there was a peak in 1996 and 2002 as well. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:17 PM Response to Reply #46 |
49. What an utterly weak backtrack. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:29 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Some history |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #49 |
51. Blasphemy! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. Your chart is new wind, not total wind - that's a wrong comparison |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 02:23 PM Response to Reply #52 |
53. Why? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:59 PM Response to Reply #49 |
69. Yes, I don't think the OP knows what peak means. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-08-10 04:58 PM Response to Original message |
14. Do you expect this trend to continue? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 01:18 AM Response to Reply #14 |
16. No answer? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:16 AM Response to Reply #16 |
21. Or maybe I'm drinking "Blueberry Beer" on a Saturday night |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 03:43 AM Response to Reply #21 |
23. No answer. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:13 AM Response to Reply #14 |
20. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 03:42 AM Response to Reply #20 |
22. That doesn't answer the question. Yaknow, denialists chose short term trends over long term... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 06:54 AM Response to Original message |
24. Lol! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 11:59 AM Response to Reply #24 |
27. This quote is interesting. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:38 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. You mean the SURVIVING plants MIGHT be relicensed and extended. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 08:17 PM Response to Reply #29 |
37. Yeah we are talking about existing nuclear plants. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 08:37 PM Response to Reply #37 |
38. No plants will get an extension. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 08:58 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. Its hard to keep up with all the propoganda. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 09:40 PM Response to Reply #37 |
40. So all those shut down with a mean age of 22 years were "stupid" decisions? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-10-10 05:12 AM Response to Reply #40 |
42. No... but what would really be "full of sh1t" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 03:57 PM Response to Reply #42 |
57. You are the ones saying that because they haven't been shut down yet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:04 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. By that logic with wind (0.3% of global energy consumption) CERTAINLY isn't worth the trouble. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:11 PM Response to Reply #58 |
59. Typical nuclear industry hype based on poor reasoning. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:14 PM Response to Reply #59 |
61. "Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:19 PM Response to Reply #61 |
62. A lot of things are "conceivable" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:22 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. All hail the Holy Jacobson and his littany of bogus numbers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 05:00 PM Response to Reply #64 |
70. From a journal who has yet to prove itself and which spammed wikipedia... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:31 PM Response to Reply #57 |
68. Where did I say that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 02:32 PM Response to Reply #27 |
54. So you are still celebrating Right Wing victories, eh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 03:03 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. Amazing how you continually mistake nuclear as a "Right Wing" thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 03:49 PM Response to Reply #55 |
56. Nuclear power is a Right Wing darling and has been for 50 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:13 PM Response to Reply #56 |
60. LBJ and Obama are Republicans? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:20 PM Response to Reply #60 |
63. The conclusion on Obama is premature... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:23 PM Response to Reply #63 |
65. So if your conclusion on nuclear resinance before first Gen III+ reactor is built |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:29 PM Response to Reply #63 |
67. Really? You think he's going to change his mind? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-11-10 04:26 PM Response to Reply #60 |
66. You going to leave out That radical RWer Jimmy Carter? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 02:14 PM Response to Reply #24 |
28. LOL - I didn't say they were authoritative, I said they were respectable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-09-10 03:59 PM Response to Reply #28 |
34. What an interesting spin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 13th 2024, 01:26 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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