US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Per]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sweden:

...

Not sure what you want to say by posting this chart (can some Mod please btw fix it so it fits the page? I'd also want to know how it's done, so I (and perhaps even Doc) can do it myself in the future... ) apart from highlighting that we have cut emissions by 30% since 1970, while at the same time having a 20% population increase (from 8.0 million in 1970 to 9.6 million in 2013).
To quote Obama: Yes we can!
And if you actually tried, so could probably you.

In fact, it seems you may have started to actually do something in the last decade, but you still emit more today than you did in 1990, so you still have a long way to go!

Why didn't you mention how much nuclear power Sweden is relying on these days (meltdown imminent?)

Well, I didn't give an actual number, but I did say "In 1970, fossil fuels accounted for 80% of energy consumption in Sweden (oil alone was 76%). Following the oil crisis of 1974/75, the government decided that it was fundamental that we stop depending on an energy source that must be imported. Today fossil fuels only account for 30% of energy consumption here, with hydro power, nuclear power and bio fuels picking up most of the slack".

Today our sources of energy are pretty balanced. With 30% coming from fossil fuels, 33% from nuclear energy and 38% from renewable sources. Nuclear power was a fast track to rid us of our oil dependency and peaked around 1991 when it made up 40% of our energy consumption. Since then we have actually closed three power plants, and some political parties want us to follow the lead of Germany and scrap nuclear power altogether.
I think the main focus here still is reduction of fossil fuels though, but preferrably some day we should reach 100% renewable, which means the nukes must go away as well.

Nuclear Power is clean while running, but the mining and waste disposal processes pose some serious environmental problems, so I agree it is not an optimal energy source. But at least it's better than oil and coal.

Btw, your chart stops in 2009, when wind power only provided 2 TWh, or roughly 0.4% of our energy. By 2014 (the last year I have seen figures for, that had risen to 11 TWh, or 2%. That means wind power has already passed natural gas in importance and is closing in on coal.

Vattenfall is atm prospecting to build a wind power park up in Lapland, where I have some property, and if all things go according to plans I will get a yearly windfall (sic!) from their enterprise.

And with that we can return to the main topic by noting that Vattenfall recently whipped Trump's ass in a Scottish court of law!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatte ... SKCN101157

[Strangelove]

You also forgot to mention how much Wind/Biomass sources are subsidized by your tax dollars...

We don't use dollars.

But yes, as successive governments have seen it as fundamental to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, investing in and subsidizing technologies that can replace them has been a logical strategy to accomplish this.

Well if it's being subsidized by your pesos, it's not an economically sound way to go.

(fossil fuels are man's best friend)

I just read an article last night that said nuclear power will continue to supply 40% of Sweden's power.

(they decided a few years ago to replace all reactors scheduled to be shut down)

(you pinks are headed for another Chernobyl/Fukushima... all in the name of trying to look green)

(I don't care enough about this subject to dig up the article)

(too many brackets?)

If it's true what you say about Trump pretending to be a Swede then he's likely certifiable.

But he'd still be a much better choice than Hillary... she's much too crooked + murdery.

It's too much work to change your pic size but folks can right-click + "open in a new window"...

Like I said "no one gives a (yellow) turd about Sweden"...

[2Fingers]

-sigh-

Doc you never lose well do you? At least you go down swinging.

Trump talks a lot but would make the worst president in US history if his last 3 months is any indicator what type of leader he will be.

[Strangelove]

-sigh-

Doc you never lose well do you? At least you go down swinging.

-sigh-

I know you... want... me to lose to your leftist brethren?

But "wanting" and "having" are two different things (you c-word).

Trump will be the next President of these united states...

[ukcanuck]

I highly doubt you are sophisticated enough to get past your christian conservative, moral majority, homophobia to understand gay rights anyway.

What on God's green Earth has pedophilia to do with "gay rights"?!!

Schooled by a priest?

Schooled in British Columbia, Publicly educated

Conservatives HATE that

[Strangelove]

Schooled in British Columbia, Publicly educated

That's where you learned pedophilia has something to do with "gay rights"?

Cuz yeah, that kind of talk won't endear you to the LGBT folk good buddy...

[2Fingers]

-sigh-

Doc you never lose well do you? At least you go down swinging.

-sigh-

I know you... want... me to lose to your leftist brethren?

But "wanting" and "having" are two different things (you c-word).

Trump will be the next President of these united states...

Actually Doc I find many of your posts entertaining and knowledgable except when you don't even attempt to see other points of view. You then tend to increase the length of your posts, quoting exerts and then finding sometimes obscure links to anything that justifies your position.

I prefer you to state your point with logic and at least acknowledge other points.

I think Trump is s complete jackass and has no regard for anyone other than himself. But I also think a few points he made are logical and to be honest it will probably have an impact on federal policy in the future.

[Strangelove]

Actually Doc I find many of your posts entertaining and knowledgable except when you don't even attempt to see other points of view.

I ignore certain "points of view" when my opponent ignores major points made by moi

... and then tries to steer the conversation in a different direction.

Tit for tat and all that rot eh wot?

You then tend to increase the length of your posts, quoting exerts and then finding sometimes obscure links to anything that justifies your position.

Yeah I'm thinking you're probably not understanding some of my links and/or my position bro.

I notice you are yet to directly challenged myself or any of my links.

I prefer you to state your point with logic and at least acknowledge other points.

Nope, you definitely don't want to hear any points which seem to to deny AGW or support The Donald...

I think Trump is s complete jackass and has no regard for anyone other than himself. But I also think a few points he made are logical and to be honest it will probably have an impact on federal policy in the future.

Well you picked a convenient time to say The Donald may have a few good points.

All you've done to date in this thread is take potshots at The Donald and anyone who seems to support him.

(or who seem to deny AGW)

Getting pretty sick of you nipping at my heels like some sort of a neurotic french poodle.

[Per]

Well if it's being subsidized by your pesos, it's not an economically sound way to go.

Not in the long run, no. But it's not unusual that new technologies need a little government seed money or tax breaks in the beginning to get off the ground.

I just read an article last night that said nuclear power will continue to supply 40% of Sweden's power.

(they decided a few years ago to replace all reactors scheduled to be shut down)

That's a misunderstanding.

Following a 1980 referendum, it was decided that no more than twelve nuclear reactors should be built in Sweden and that all nuclear power should be phased out by 2010.
The governments after that never set their foot down on the phasing out though, and only two reactors have been shut down. (Sorry, said three before, but the third has not been shut down, it is out of use do to technical problems, but could get started again.) Thus we still have ten.

So, what you refer to is that in 2010 it was decided that we cannot phase out nuclear energy in the short run, and that even though the decision to not increase the number of reactors still stands, it will no longer be illegal to replace the old reactors with new ones.

Thus it is not a decision to replace the old ones, but a decision to lift the ban on replacing them.

Whether or not any reactor actually will be replaced will be a decision to make for the companies that run them. It's a pretty heavy investment decision in a market with falling prices, so we'll see about that.

It's too much work to change your pic size but folks can right-click + "open in a new window"...

Really? I had no idea I could do that on an iPad.

[ukcanuck]

Schooled in British Columbia, Publicly educated

That's were you learned pedophilia has something to do with "gay rights"?

Cuz yeah, that kind of talk won't endear you to the LGBT folk good buddy...

you shouldn't reference communities you have no idea about good sir...

still waiting on your reply on the charge that your wish list of deniers are ALL right wing buffoons ?

love how you avoid that

the silence speaks volumes

[ukcanuck]

I figure a smart man such as yourself (doc) should be able to school me on said charge

yet its not happening ?

Should I infer you're not able?

[ukcanuck]

Getting pretty sick of you nipping at my heels like some sort of a neurotic french poodle.

resorting to name calling again? #doccallingnameswhenlosingargument.com

[Strangelove]

It's too much work to change your pic size but folks can right-click + "open in a new window"...

Really? I had no idea I could do that on an iPad.

Oh, okay.

I don't know of an easy way to do this as a mod, not sure if Corn does.

Well I did that one you wanted re-sized the other day

... by just finding a smaller version of the same pic on Google images.

(this latest one you wanted re-sized did not have a smaller version available)

I guess I could re-size your pic on my Adobe Photoshop

... then post it at Photobucket

... then post it here with a [Mod Edit].

But yeahno, I use my Adobe Photoshop once in a blue moon so I'm very slow with it.

Sorry buds, not my area of expertise!

As for Sweden's greenness, not sure if subsidizing alternatives and ramping-up nuclear power is the way to go.

And if Sweden does end up cutting back on dat dere... aren't they then apt to go back to using more fossil fuels?

Whatever, Sweden can have the Greenest Country on Earth label in this forum if it makes you happy.

Back on topic, Don or Hillary, I don't think America will be "going green" anytime soon...

[ukcanuck]

[

Back on topic, Don or Hillary, I don't think America will be "going green" anytime soon...

such is the pity

leadership vacuum

[Strangelove]

Schooled in British Columbia, Publicly educated

That's where you learned pedophilia has something to do with "gay rights"?

Cuz yeah, that kind of talk won't endear you to the LGBT folk good buddy...

you shouldn't reference communities you have no idea about good sir...

Common sense tells me the LGBT folk would hate you for the way you equated their movement to pedophilia.

still waiting on your reply on the charge that your wish list of deniers are ALL right wing buffoons ?

love how you avoid that

the silence speaks volumes

AGAIN, in the beginning, those two vids you said you'd watch (but didn't) make it clear that this is a political issue.

MY POINT from the beginning is that this is a political issue.

Lmao eventually you started screaming at me "Hey it's a political issue!!".

DUH wake the fuck up!

I've been trying to tell you all along but you're thick.

"Right wing buffoons"... "leftist goosestepping morons".

Do you get it yet?