Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
7. DONE!
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 11:12 AM
Feb 2012

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)

US Energy Policy: The Path Forward.
National Academy of Sciences
May 19, 2004

READ IT AND WEEP!!!

I NEVER want to hear you say again that I didn't give you the citation.
You can find it at the Library of any University that teaches science.

Additionally, the most recent NAS energy study also addresses the problems with having a large
proportion of our energy capacity in renewables. I've cited this section to Kris numerous times before
but he conveniently ignores it:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=4

However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity.

The main problem above is the storage technology; we don't have it. Kris, you might also educate yourself better on
this issue by viewing the PBS Nova science program on energy from 2009 with Dr. Steven Chu saying the biggest
problem of using more wind and solar is the storage issue echoing the 2004 National Academy Study:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/energy-secretary-chu.html

"If we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy,
we need to solve the energy-storage problem."

As Dr Chu states; the energy storage problem is NOT solved, and until you do that,
solar, wind, and other renewables are going to be LESS THAN 30% of the mix.

PamW

LOL, this is actually kind of funny. joshcryer Feb 2012 #1
Don't say I didn't warn you!! PamW Feb 2012 #2
No reputable scientists would make false representations like that kristopher Feb 2012 #3
I EXPLAINED THAT!! PamW Feb 2012 #4
No you didn't. kristopher Feb 2012 #6
DONE! PamW Feb 2012 #7
Not done. kristopher Feb 2012 #8
OH BROTHER!! PamW Feb 2012 #9
Simply put, you are not telling the truth kristopher Feb 2012 #10
Poor READING COMPREHENSION!!! PamW Feb 2012 #11
This says it ALL!! PamW Feb 2012 #12
SURE THERE IS!!! PamW Feb 2012 #5
Evidently Kris didn't read this part! PamW Feb 2012 #13
Huh. caraher Feb 2012 #14
I sick and tired of Kris PamW Feb 2012 #17
There is no 2004 report, Pam. You made that up. kristopher Feb 2012 #15
WRONG and DISENGENUOUS!!! PamW Feb 2012 #16
Legitimate scientists do not fabricate data like you do. kristopher Feb 2012 #18
I DO NOT FABRICATE!!! PamW Feb 2012 #20
THEY SURE DO!!! PamW Feb 2012 #21
Kicked for review nt kristopher Jul 2013 #22
Obama seeks to make renewable Production Tax Credit permanent kristopher Feb 2012 #19
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Obama's Budget Nixes New ...»Reply #7