2011-07-04 02:03:06Dana, did you really invite BBD to discuss nukes on this site?
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.167.230

And what on earth did you imagine he would contribute?  He strikes me as a complete blowhard.

2011-07-04 03:55:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15

No, I was commenting on the Bishop Hill blog, and the subject of renewable energy came up.  It was off-topic, so I suggested if he wanted to discuss the subject, he could do so in the comments on my renewable energy post.  I had intended the discussion to focus on renewables, not nuclear power.  I certainly agree that he's too pro-nuclear, and seems to have some blinders on about the subject.  But he's more intelligent and reasonable than most 'skeptics'.

2011-07-04 03:58:23
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.167.230

"Most 'skeptics'" is a very low bar.  I don't doubt his intelligence, but he clearly can't distinguish between what constitutes rational argument, and what constituted propoganda.

2011-07-04 06:09:54
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.113.196

Please, no more invitations to pro-nuclear cheerleaders. There's a handful that pop up all over the blogosphere - bores everyone rigid.

2011-07-11 04:45:27
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I seem to have got drawn into a pointless disscussion with them.

Irritating. Is he American??

I assume he isn't British.

2011-07-11 05:11:42
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

His IP address is from London, England.

2011-07-11 05:25:42
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Good grief!

Mind you. if he is young I would not be surprised that he is ignorant of much of UK history. Although his comments imply is relatively old.

He is probably just being a pain in the arse for the sake of it.

2011-07-12 23:10:15
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.141.100

I quote:

 

"In a nutshell:

LAGI says:

We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land).



What it means is that average raw energy density at the surface is 200W/m2. 

The choice of words is fabulously confusing. One might even suspect deliberately so."

 

Dana, do you still claim "he is more intelligent and reasonable than most skeptics'"?  I thought that was a low standard, but to my mind he has massively underachieved it.