301–310 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if my country has 0 dependence on fossils, how many fucks would I have given for whatever is happening or will be happening in the future in shithole places like the middle east?
Won't someone think of the children, how are their schools going to get bombed if we dont do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lithium is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Newer battery chemistries don't use lithium. By the time we use enough energy to run out of all the elements we could make batteries with, we're likely to be at the "cheap asteroid mining" level of technological development.
Abundant doesn't mean unlimited, nor does it mean economical or environmentally friendly to access. The point is that most countries would need to import metals and minerals critical to renewable energy.
We're talking about a trickle of imports if recycling doesn't cover growing needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kamala was always obviously a better option than Trump. Let's not pretend people didn't know who and what Trump was, or that his behavior after 2024 came as a shock to anyone.
I think most people expected Trump Two to be a similar shit show to Trump One. I was no fan, but he was generally popular on the issue of the economy during his first term, and I think a lot of people had the economy as their primary consideration in 2024. Flooding the zone works, they tuned out all the rhetoric as partisan noise.
While they were being warned that his team spent 4 years planning on how to get rid of anyone who pushed back, and he wouldn't be hamstrung this time.
The people who thought 2.0 would be like 1.0 were simply choosing to beleive it despite all of the evidence suggesting otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spain's situation is bad: very high gas prices (now at the same level as Finland, despite much lower purchasing power), poor public transport (train) services, opposition to nuclear energy, electric cars that are only affordable for the wealthy (and even then, the infrastructure makes them difficult to use), high VAT on electricity, etc. All this in a country where many people have to ration their heating or air cond…
Poor train service? (Recent accidents aside) Any areas in particular?
Yeah, the high speed AVE trains are nice if you want to go to Madrid, but if you just want to get to work it's a disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not much. Projects listed there can't store energy for winter needs.
Neither could French nuclear plants when they were turned off for weeks at a time for emergency maintenance. So, France fired up the gas. 5x cheaper electricity, on the other hand, makes power-to-gas economic, which can smooth out seasonal variations in a carbon neutral way.
Last I checked it seemed like something pushed by gas companies since it upholds gas infrastructure and most of the intermittence is currently supported by gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> America has ample supplies of natural gas, oil etc. and so doesn't need to turn away from fossil fuels to be energy independent. In the short to medium term. The natural gas, oil etc. are in fact finite resources created over a tremendously long period of time in pre-history and so once they run out you're done. You could run nuclear power plants much longer, perhaps even indefinitely, and of course wind and sunlig…
Yeah, exactly. We have a relatively short window of a few centuries, perhaps less, to master nuclear power (perhaps even nuclear fusion), photovoltaic panels, efficient wind turbines (including more complex offshore construction) and deploy them all at scale. And to do it all before we cook ourselves in greenhouse gases. I'm rather optimistic about it but it does seem that most people don't fully grasp the importance…
The US is a large place with a lot of potential for extraction, so if you ignore the bit where the hostile climate kills them instead they could keep extracting at similar rates for maybe a century or more, but it does run out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what do you think of theory that denuclearisation movement in west europe was funded by CCCP? it makes sense to think CCCP/Putin would finance subversive movements to remove nuclear and coal and make the region dependent on russian energy exports
An absurd conspiracy theory. Nuclear power has an LCOE that is 5x the cost of solar and wind. Nobody would build it on cost alone. The only reason countries build and run nuclear power plants is because it shares supply chain and a skills base with the nuclear military. Which means they have nukes (France, Russia, US) or they they want to take out an option to one day build a nuke in a hurry just in case for a threat…
Polish discussion about nuclear energy has always been openly tied to national security and energy independence, given its/Europe's reliance on Russian energy exports. Especially given its northern geography, nuclear is better for base load stability. (The environmental is also important, and strides have been made to reduce emissions.)
Of course, there has also been discussion in Poland about nuclear sharing or even seeking to acquire/build nuclear weapons itself, also openly, but I don't think anyone is actually pursuing this in earnest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't ignore any of your points. If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change. Don't distract everyone by claiming that fire is the most important thing, worthy of gathering during a pandemic about. This isn't about propaganda, well not in the sense you're using it. The argument, which you seem to disagree with, is the importance of focusing on a s…
Your argument basically boils down to "Climate change is the most important thing, so action on any other issue is bad." I don't see you responding anywhere to the general categories of criticisms I raised: 1. Climate change isn't one thing - it's a systemic problem in a system with lots of problems. 2. It seems ludicrous to assume that suddenly people will listen to us about climate change if we ignore other issues,…
If you honestly believe that it is an existential crisis, then you must accept that NOTHING WILL EXIST if we fail to address climate change. So any social gain we make fighting fires will be wiped out anyway if we fail to deal with climate change. That you don't see this, and that you are willing for all these other issues to share the stage with climate change, is a big problem. You want to blame the media, and the right-wing, and perhaps other things for the lack of progress, without fully comprehending your own part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't say 10+ radars have been destroyed. It says radar sites have been attacked 10 times across 7 locations in 6 countries, with some damaged and some destroyed. This biggest loss was the mobile THAAD radar in Jordan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPY-2_transportable_radar There's also evidence they hit a building in Saudi Arabia containing a AN/TPY-2 but it's not clear if it was damaged Plus a couple video…
C-RAM radars - at least one US embassy was hit with an elcheapo drone as well, rendering it useless. Thats a legit problem and was only possible because they took out most of the important ballistics radars first.
The C-RAM was in Baghdad, the high end radars hit were in the other gulf states.
The CWIS is probably the best anti-drone tool the US has but they have far too little of them and can get overwhelmed. They should have listened to Ukraine.