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
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Stewart Brand: Why Environmentalists Must Accept Nuclear [View all]joshcryer
(62,296 posts)14. I think that's a bit wonky GG.
As long as energy is available and affordable to somebody, if it's not being used, the system is not maximizing power intake and will adapt to correct that situation.
There is only so much energy an individual can use. I mean... turn on all your lights, all your appliances, every single thing that requires electricity in your home. There. You've just met your maximum quanta of energy expenditure. Now you might say, "hey, I'm energy efficient and I actively act to not use energy" or something like that, but the point stands, because even if that's true, you still have an upper bound of physical energy consumption. It helps that you live in the developed world and have already accessed the highest standard available (so you can't reasonably say that you have the potential to grow your energy needs further).
Of course, this all hearkens back to the Jevons thread where everybody got it wrong, so... :twisted:
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry - it's actually low energy "transformity" that's the hallmark of low quality.
GliderGuider
Feb 2013
#46