[removed]

Oh god I can see it happening in the next few years... That's horrifying... Not just the idea of the generated content itself but the fact that people will react exactly how you think they would, they'll all be rallying behind it claiming "clearly they have emotions"... We are in for a rough ride if we don't start educating people.

[deleted]

[removed]

This is satire, right?

Russia is the perfect example for your policy recommendation: no renewables, but doubled the nuclear power output since 1998.

Here is how the share of low-carbon electricity developed respectively over the past 20 years. In the EU it increased from 48.2% to 60.5%, while in Russia it increased from 34.4% to 40%. In relative terms that's a growth of 16.3% in low-carbon share in Russia, and a 25.6% growth in the EU.

Consumption of gas for primary energy peaked in the EU in 2010 before Fukushima at 4,228 TWh. It's use declined over the past decade to 3,966 TWh in 2021.

The EU decreased its nuclear power output since 2010, Russia increased it (in terms of primary energy from 454 TWh in 2010 to 558 TWh in 2021). But Russia also increased its gas consumption from 4,239 TWh in 2010 to 4746 TWh in 2021.

So you have: Russia implementing your policy advice, expanding nuclear power and shunning solar+wind, and the EU decreasing nuclear power output and expanding solar+wind. But these examples do not seem to support your conclusion. Rather the other way around, the example with increased nuclear power output also increased gas consumption, while the one with increased solar+wind decreased it.

Renewables are a shock to the fossil fuel providers, as they are eating into their market shares. Not only in the EU, but on a global scale: in 2011 fossil fuels constituted 86.16% of primary energy consumption globally, ten years later this share wass decreased to 82.28% in 2021.

This article discusses this aspect more specifically for Russia:

>Russia is the world’s top exporter of both oil and gas, and the third largest oil producer making it a major extraction powerhouse. According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) revenues from oil and gas-related taxes and export tariffs accounted for 45% of Russia’s federal budget in January 2022. > >This makes its economy uniquely vulnerable to the impact of disruptions, and suggested that in order to assert itself in a context of looming economic decline, it may resort to increasing aggression (both internal and external). Once Russia’s oligarchy saw peak oil demand in the rear view mirror, it would get increasingly aggressive and aim to maximize short-term extraction and cash flow. Given Russia’s preeminent position in the fossil fuel system, its recent expansionist history, and the likelihood of oil prices crashing down to the $20/barrel level by the end of the 2020s (which Seba predicted in Clean Disruption), Seba assessed that it was one of the top candidates for increasing geopolitical instability.

So you have declining fossil fuel consumption in the EU since 2006 (decreased from 15,103 TWh to 11,759 TWh in 2021), and increasing renewable power output. And you conclusion from that is that the renewable power is a boon to the fossil fuel providers?

I did. You're still wrong. Congress has no power of prior restraint in preventing Interior from issuing resource extraction permits. Your desperate attempt at partisanship is transparent.

If you're unhappy with people pointing this out, correct your comment. That's all it takes.

Pretty much anything is for sale in US isn't it? Like you could walk up to anyone holding their most prized possession and I feel you could buy it from them. In God We Trust. Lol. More like "1-800-CASH-NOW"

In which way does it screw any of this to create a political obligation to finance charging-stations at the relatively few places where a European main-road doesn't have sufficient demand that the market alone will ensure that chargers are installed?

It'll cost taxpayers a bit of money of course. On the other hand it'll be a benefit for competition between EVs and ICEs that consumers will know they can buy either type of vehicle and feel certain that there'll be sufficient chargers along ALL main-roads in the EU.

And let's get real; a few charging-stations is small fry. It's not as if this decision will amount to more than an utterly TRIVIAL fraction of the transport-budget in EU.

Less than five years before you could do this and also record dreams and thoughts—like making up a movie in your mind and then seeing it on a screen. All in high definition.

You should read Football 17776. It takes place in a world where there is no scarcity and humans are immortal. It's absolutely fascinating and existentially terrifying, even though it genuinely takes place in a utopia, no sinister caveats. It's not very long, can be found online, is free, and mixes some really unconventional storytelling methods

[removed]

>A benign nuclear solution would be a part.

There is no "benign nuclear solution". Nuclear is hands down the most expensive and impractical way to phase out fossil fuels. It is neither econimically viable nor can it compete with renewables in scalability or the timeframe needed to replace fossil fuels.

[removed]

>If many of these points were true it would also make renewable energy transition impossible. New sources of uranium and minerals(such as rare earths needed by renewables) are made avalaible if the price increases.

No it wouldn't, given the abundance of the elements involved and the impossibility of recycling irradiated materials on a viable timescale. Renewables ismply don't suffer from the inherent shortcomings nuclear has here. Extracting Uranium from other sources would make nuclear power even more unviable from an economic standpoint.

>How would such tiny a reduction in consetration would make process unfeasible?

Might I suggest reading the actual paper?

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

The issue is that the concentration in seawater is measured in ppb to begin with and the amount of water you need to filter to extract meaningful quantities of Uranium rises to infinity as the Uranium is extracted.

>This tells us that, for example, in as little as T = 30 years, a volume of seawater of 7x10^15 m3 would need to be processed - this is clearly impractical as it is over six times larger than the volume of total river outflow in the same time.

Nuclear is already the most expensive option out there. It simply isn't viable as a replacement for fossil fuels on a global scale, and given the growth in energy consumption it is bascially impossible to scale it to meet global base load demands.

china is as guilty as the rest of developed nation, same shit list as usa and australia

Read all the comments before commenting yourself, it will save you a lot of headache and me time.

My alcoholic neighbour has done a lot of progress, he's decreased his drinking a lot more than I have (I don't drink).

"TL;DR", indeed. You didn't read it; this is Biden's Interior Department doing this, not Congress.

Germany, has progressed farther on the COP target and CO2 reduction and agreement as opposed to France though.

Electricity is just a quarter of total energy consumption.

>only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.

In this case, Biden. This is a unilateral Department of the Interior move, not Congress

"The president’s Department of the Interior offered up a vast area of the central and western Gulf..."

... has "nothing to do with Biden"?

Sorry that is just a load of nonsense. People ate everything because food was extremely scarse, they also ate lot of crap that was barely nutritional because anything was better than to starve. How do you think did we evolve the capability to eat almost everything? It's because those who could digest more stuff had an advantage. If you analyse the skeletons of hunter gatherer remains, virtually all of the have deficiencies for important nutrients

TIL that the Senate is "overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans."

I'd agree that the produced heat doesn't really play much of a role with respect to climate change.

> Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.

As your cited study points out. This heavily depends on where you place the solar panels. You can easily imagine that things like black-tiled rooftops or asphalted parking lots are actually improved in terms of absorbed heat by covering them with solar panels.

Naaah, I say let it die