|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 05:57 PM Original message |
Nuclear vs. wind comparison - land use, material requirements and costs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ruby the Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 05:59 PM Response to Original message |
1. This should be a fun thread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tesha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:36 PM Response to Reply #1 |
14. It's not worth arguing with the pro-nukers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 08:44 AM Response to Reply #14 |
39. Here's a bit more nuance |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msongs (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:03 PM Response to Original message |
2. u forgot to include stats on waste disposal and cost of chernobyl experiences nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:07 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. No, those have already been heavily discussed here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:20 PM Response to Reply #3 |
8. You are entitled to your wrong opinions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:27 PM Response to Reply #3 |
9. 1 in 10 chance of another Chernobyl |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:15 PM Response to Reply #9 |
13. So in other words |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 10:53 AM Response to Reply #13 |
42. 1 in 10 odds are not miniscule - the nuclear industry is playing russian roulette |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 11:04 AM Response to Reply #42 |
43. No, but 1 in 250 odds are pretty small. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:41 PM Response to Reply #43 |
52. You're willing to take a chance on killing a large number of people near a nuke |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:58 PM Response to Reply #52 |
54. "I'll take my chances with finding a solution for the co2 in other directions" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:08 PM Response to Reply #54 |
56. I don't like coal any more than anyone else does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:17 AM Response to Reply #56 |
88. Poor chemistry leads to poor understanding |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 07:08 AM Response to Reply #88 |
97. You need to do some more research |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 08:48 AM Response to Reply #97 |
100. Gasification only reduces the amount of CO2 going into the air if it is captured and sequestered |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 09:55 AM Response to Reply #100 |
102. That is false |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 10:13 AM Response to Reply #102 |
103. You are the one that doesn't understand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 11:15 AM Response to Reply #103 |
104. Another case of nuclear inspired pseudo-science? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 11:46 AM Response to Reply #104 |
106. The efficiency point is a good one, thanks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 12:39 PM Response to Reply #106 |
108. Gen IV (LFTR) can take advantage of combined cycle (Brayton) generators, too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 12:37 PM Response to Reply #104 |
107. Agreed, we need Gen IV. LFTR and IFR. Burn the waste, produce little CO2 over lifecycle. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 12:42 PM Response to Reply #107 |
109. Sure, we can just wait 30 years until those are ready to deploy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 07:18 PM Response to Reply #109 |
111. IFR nearly fully researched and could be deployed in 5. LFTR could be in under 10. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 11:29 AM Response to Reply #102 |
105. I've read up on it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 07:15 PM Response to Reply #105 |
110. Heres a couple of links with more to come. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:09 AM Response to Reply #52 |
87. It's not for many years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 07:15 AM Response to Reply #87 |
98. A bomb and a meltdown is two different animals completely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 09:35 AM Response to Reply #98 |
101. Same complement of radionuclides |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 09:09 AM Response to Reply #9 |
41. Talk about pulling figures out of an orifice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 02:56 PM Response to Reply #41 |
45. US reactors can go Chernobyl |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 04:04 PM Response to Reply #45 |
46. A couple of comments about the 2003 MIT study |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:28 PM Response to Reply #46 |
50. My calculations are correct. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:18 PM Response to Reply #50 |
61. Again I agree with bananas: the old nuclear reactors need to be replaced asap with Gen IV |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:53 PM Response to Reply #61 |
73. I agree completely. Gen II/III/III+ are unsafe, we need reactors that have hundred million year... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 08:56 PM Response to Reply #73 |
77. And to address the cost issue, I favor modular reactors with mass produced components |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 09:17 PM Response to Reply #50 |
78. After going back to basics, I agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:30 AM Response to Reply #45 |
85. Your odds are bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 09:58 AM Response to Reply #45 |
86. Poor math leads to poor understanding |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:57 AM Response to Reply #86 |
90. Actually, his math is OK, it's his words that are in error. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:01 PM Response to Reply #90 |
92. I'm actually talking about the relicensing issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:48 PM Response to Reply #92 |
93. My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PamW (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 08:11 PM Response to Reply #86 |
94. MIT: Reactivity Feedback Explanation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:48 AM Response to Reply #45 |
89. Reactor safety is improving over time quite dramatically |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:41 PM Response to Reply #89 |
95. Which makes me repeat: anyone who stops a new nuclear plant is endangering us all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 06:55 AM Response to Reply #95 |
96. Wrong. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jan-26-11 07:15 AM Response to Reply #96 |
99. You proved it to us yourself, bananas |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:40 PM Response to Reply #9 |
59. "if we try to keep the existing reactors running for another 25 years" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:38 PM Response to Reply #59 |
64. Heheh, that is a brilliant observation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:32 PM Response to Reply #3 |
10. "The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . ." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:56 PM Response to Reply #2 |
23. You are wrong!!111 Chernobyl doesn't count in the area of land rendered unusable by nuclear power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Exultant Democracy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:13 PM Response to Original message |
4. The only problem I have is that I don't trust the contractors. It may be safe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:14 PM Response to Original message |
5. Cost analysis by Exelon and others have different numbers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msongs (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:15 PM Response to Original message |
6. of course private industry is gonna build these things with NO taxpayer subsidies or loans :-) nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:19 PM Response to Original message |
7. Some other problems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:38 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. Why not do both? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:33 PM Response to Reply #12 |
63. Indeed. Why not do both? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:58 PM Response to Reply #12 |
76. Why not research Gen IV and mass manufacture LFTRs/IFRs? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Laelth (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 06:34 PM Response to Original message |
11. k&r. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:41 PM Response to Original message |
15. Did this stupid analysis include the footprint of the entire nuclear fuel cycle - nope! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gregorian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:45 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Why aren't we seeing Thorium reactors? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:46 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. because they suck |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gregorian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:44 PM Response to Original message |
16. Wow, that's interesting about the concrete and steel use. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:52 PM Response to Reply #16 |
21. He didn't include the entire nuclear fuel cycle - which we all know doesn't use concrete and steel |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:59 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Do you have any numbers for that? I'd be glad to include them. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 08:03 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. Not my analysis - you need to do some homework before you post this stuff |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:42 PM Response to Reply #25 |
66. That's silly for such a simple assessment. There are hundreds of turbine building plants... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:40 PM Response to Reply #21 |
65. Processing plants could be included, but then you'd have to include the wind manufacturing... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fledermaus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:46 PM Response to Original message |
18. How did you come up with 1ha for a MW of generation? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:51 PM Response to Reply #18 |
20. by pulling it out of an orifice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 07:54 PM Response to Reply #18 |
22. The NREL analysis says it found 0.3 ha per MW of nameplate cpapcity |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 08:54 PM Response to Reply #22 |
26. Well, if we are going to play these games, why not divide the area of nuclear power plants |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 10:03 PM Response to Reply #26 |
30. Because the end product we're interested in is electricity. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 10:19 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. America’s oldest commercial reactor is Oyster Creek in New Jersey |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:57 AM Response to Reply #32 |
36. Comparing the "newest" wind turbines with the "oldest" nuclear plant designs? False equivalency much |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:44 PM Response to Reply #36 |
68. Indeed, and we're expected to believe that wind will have 40% capacity factors and last 20 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 10:28 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. No - the area of a wind turbine pad is not related to its capacity factor |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:20 AM Response to Reply #33 |
35. I'll say one thing for kristopher |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:53 PM Response to Reply #35 |
53. He also knows how to put in plain english what he's talking about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:07 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. I suppose tautologies are plain English... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:43 PM Response to Reply #26 |
67. Because wind isn't thermal? You'd be rounding it back to GWe either way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fledermaus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 12:59 AM Response to Reply #22 |
34. Bad Science, par for the course for you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 08:23 AM Response to Reply #34 |
37. Fortunately there was nothing arbitrary about my decision to normalize for capacity factor. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 11:21 AM Response to Reply #34 |
44. Don't put lipstick on the wind-pig. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fledermaus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 04:16 PM Response to Reply #44 |
47. Apparently, you and your friend want to pull a number out of your butt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 04:20 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. Perhaps this might help... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fledermaus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:37 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Bad Sience! You have been shown to be making things up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:48 PM Response to Reply #51 |
60. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:46 PM Response to Reply #51 |
69. I don't think you have showed anywhere where GGs analysis is flawed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:23 AM Response to Reply #51 |
84. Have you ever worked for a company that does science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fledermaus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:18 PM Response to Reply #44 |
58. Apparently, your reference material comes from a site called "tinypic" a web page for photos. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 10:29 PM Response to Reply #58 |
80. We're looking at the average velocity of wind cubed over a ten-day period |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:20 AM Response to Reply #58 |
83. Do you even know why he did that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 09:33 PM Response to Original message |
27. Well, by your argument we should dump wind and nuclear for coal and natural gas |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 09:52 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. No, the point is to get rid of as much CO2 as we can. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:49 PM Response to Reply #29 |
71. Reality: we aren't getting rid of as much CO2 as we can and forum posts won't change that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:48 PM Response to Reply #27 |
70. No, it's more that liars keep saying that these energies are more cost effective than nuclear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNadir (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 11:46 PM Response to Reply #27 |
81. Well, if you include external costs, not that fans of Amory Lovins know how to do that, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 09:43 PM Response to Original message |
28. Couldn't tell with a quick look if that includes the transmission system. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jan-23-11 10:04 PM Response to Reply #28 |
31. No, it doesn't, and yes wind would require more. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 08:42 AM Response to Reply #31 |
38. Wisecrack after wisecrack ... you must have hit a nerve. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 08:58 AM Response to Reply #38 |
40. The growth of atmospheric CO2 is changing the dynamics of the debate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:56 PM Response to Reply #40 |
75. I think that you are surrounded by too many people like youself. CO2 is far from peoples minds. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:54 PM Response to Reply #38 |
74. Wind will be built out in EU and the US, but natural gas will play an overwhelming role in both. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:51 PM Response to Reply #28 |
72. Correct. It's a simple analysis. Both the OP and BNC are just doing quick and dirty math... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
XemaSab (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 05:01 PM Response to Original message |
49. Does your figure include |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 06:14 PM Response to Reply #49 |
57. No, although the NREL study includes it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 07:22 PM Response to Original message |
62. Oh man, how did I miss this thread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jan-24-11 10:20 PM Response to Reply #62 |
79. Latecomers are welcome |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 12:17 AM Response to Reply #79 |
82. I left my mark. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jan-25-11 10:59 AM Response to Original message |
91. I've posted an assessment of reactor safety above |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 05:34 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