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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

AZJonnie

(3,735 posts)

10. I was just thinking the other day I hadn't seen an NNadir pro-nuke post in awhile

Reply to NNadir (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 8, 2026, 12:10 PM

10 hrs ago

Out of curiosity, is it not possible that, had some sizeable portion of renewable power NOT be deployed world-wide over the past few decades, the 433 ppm measurement would be even higher than that?

I'm confused how the fact that this number is continuing to rise despite these deployments somehow proves that the strategy is not effective? Could renewables not be deployed ENOUGH to stop the upward thrust, but still being HELPFUL in reducing the rate of rise?

At the least, wouldn't you have to KNOW what the number would otherwise be without such deployments, so you have something to compare it to?

Not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing how "the number keeps rising" alone proves the strategy is completely useless?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Emrys

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scotland temporarily ran entirely on wind power as turbines generated over 200 percent of national electricity demand. [View all] Swede 13 hrs ago OP

We could learn a lot from our European friends if we would get our head out of our ass. walkingman 13 hrs ago #1

It has NOTHING to do with our heads up our asses. Conjuay 12 hrs ago #2

Both are true. yardwork 12 hrs ago #6

Scotland regularly generates an electricity surplus over its own requirements Emrys 12 hrs ago #3

Decades of these kinds of momentary 100% reports demonstrate... NNadir 12 hrs ago #4

This isn't a "momentary" surplus, nor is it unreliable. Emrys 12 hrs ago #7

Nonsense. It isn't rocket science to understand that the wind doesn't blow continuously. NNadir 11 hrs ago #9

I was just thinking the other day I hadn't seen an NNadir pro-nuke post in awhile AZJonnie 10 hrs ago #10

Wind power will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. hunter 9 hrs ago #13

Yes I've read many dozens of NNadir's posts over the years, you don't have to get me up to speed AZJonnie 9 hrs ago #15

The best ways to halt human population growth are not coercive. hunter 8 hrs ago #16

Nuclear power will have a similar effect Emrys 8 hrs ago #18

Low wind and no sunshine cause renewable energy shutdowns constantly. hunter 5 hrs ago #20

Hence my emphasis throughout on a MIX of resources Emrys 4 hrs ago #23

Trashing coastal environments with tidal power schemes isn't going to save the world. hunter 37 min ago #25

Bullshit. Hickley C will be saving lives half a century after every wind turbine in Scotland has become landfill. NNadir 4 hrs ago #21

Oh, bullshit yourself. Emrys 4 hrs ago #24

Nonsense yourself. I think you fit very well the description of an ideologue Emrys 10 hrs ago #12

Could it be that's what the fossil fuel industry wants you to think? hunter 8 hrs ago #17

I don't know why you think that. Emrys 8 hrs ago #19

Human ingenuity sometimes (not often, but sometimes) Torchlight 12 hrs ago #5

really good DoBW 11 hrs ago #8

They will need to be bombed over this and their regime changed. Too threatening to Big Oil. (SARCASM). artemisia1 10 hrs ago #11

Gee. Who WOULDN'T want that for the USA and planet earth? Kid Berwyn 9 hrs ago #14

Wouldn't it be great to read, United States of America temporarily ran entirely on wind power... Passages 4 hrs ago #22

And we get coal natural gas and oil. Klarkashton 31 min ago #26