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

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

20. Actually,

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 19, 2013, 03:54 PM

Nov 2013

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:41 PM - Edit history (2)

It tells me that you and kristopher are both hopium salesmen, just with different brands.

If you're going to stick to your bleat about "the past doesn't define the future", then that should automatically invalidate your criticism of Malthusians. Shouldn't it? But it won't, because the reality of tipping points, irreversibility and the determinism of human behavior in the presence of large flows of Gibbs free energy aren't what you and kristopher are building your prophetic foundations on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Either China's screwed, or everybody is. [View all] GliderGuider Nov 2013 OP

Unsustainable energy-base is just one of many destabilizing factors in China. DetlefK Nov 2013 #1

China can't reprise the European industrial revolution. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #6

"They don't have enough other energy resources..." kristopher Nov 2013 #2

Economies require energy. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #4

You said they don't have the resources. kristopher Nov 2013 #7

I know Canada is doing badly. I'm not talking about Canada. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #9

Maybe you SHOULD be talking about Canada. kristopher Nov 2013 #11

Why, so I'll stop talking about really uncomfortable things? GliderGuider Nov 2013 #12

I was thinking you might be motivated ... kristopher Nov 2013 #13

I yam what I yam, kristopher. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #16

China has a lot of solar potential Demeter Nov 2013 #3

What's the source for your extrapolation? FBaggins Nov 2013 #5

The data is from the BP Statistical Review. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #10

Sorry... once again? FBaggins Nov 2013 #14

Those are my curve fits to the BP data. nt GliderGuider Nov 2013 #15

Surely you know that you can't do that? FBaggins Nov 2013 #17

So both the pro- and anti-nuke camps think this is bad juju. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #18

Which should tell you something FBaggins Nov 2013 #19

Actually, GliderGuider Nov 2013 #20

Nope. FBaggins Nov 2013 #21

Here's how I see it. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #23

Well, no matter what one is "selling," be it a vision of disaster or something else, curve... NNadir Nov 2013 #27

I've banished two words from my vocabulary: "should" and "hope" GliderGuider Nov 2013 #29

Whilst not as pessimistic as you, I thought that was a good post - thanks. Nihil Nov 2013 #31

Glad you liked it! GliderGuider Nov 2013 #32

100 million tons of coal for China pscot Nov 2013 #8

100 million tons of coal will produce 286 million tons of CO2 byproduct ??? CRH Nov 2013 #22

It's EIA, though output will vary a bit - grade of coal, efficiency of combustion, etc. hatrack Nov 2013 #24

He's not that wrong. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #25

"1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons)" kristopher Nov 2013 #26

Basic chemistry FBaggins Nov 2013 #28

Something else to note: GliderGuider Nov 2013 #30