sartalon

Yeah, I got pinged twice, in one visit because I moved shit around, trying to organize.

Way more false positives, in my opinions.

You are quoting "The majority of studies..." but I am not sure where you are pulling that from.

I have an issue with that quote since it is absolutely wrong about shipping and air trasport.

Edit:

And furthermore, you can't just abandon a significant sector and expect to pick it up later on.

There is tremendous momentum in each sector and to just focus on one, at the behest of others, is a TERRIBLE idea. Each sector does not exist in a vacuum. They all have supporting industries that also need to be developed and planned out. To put everything into renewables, is irresponsible at best. If we don't subsidize it all all. Then it will be a stillborn process that will never see anything outside an office.

Great, we now have 100% renewables, but we've had elevated CO2 for decades and now we have to spin up carbon capture from scratch because someone had the great idea to drop everything else. So add another 20 years for that to work up. We don't have that luxury.

Not as it exists now. There are zero viable solutions for shipping or air travel, for example.

Achievable yes, but not in any near time frame, so we HAVE to look at other mitigating options as well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a very poor strategy.

Building more nuclear WOULD help. Yes, it has a huge capital front cost, and it takes a while to earn that back, but then it keeps paying.

The whole point of allowing these localized monopolies on power, is because power benefits from economy of scale and nuclear, right now, is the pinnacle of that. Large up front cost but also a solid, continual return that doesn't rely on outside factors.

I have to disagree with you because we need to invest now, if for no better reason, to advance carbon capture technology. It needs to advance in parallel. Otherwise we are just pushing that can down the road.

As much as I want to be 100% renewable/clean, that is never going to happen. Not at our population, not at our power demand level, not at our rate of growth.

Hell, we can't even get people to accept nuclear power as part of the solution.

Wait, are you suggesting that a bunch of fundies, praying at a temple, is a reasonable excuse to target high populated civilian areas, to maximize innocent deaths? Oh and add kidnapping to the list too.

Oh noes, they "Stormed the site and prayed."

Better kill them all.

My work is trying to engineer a design /plan for electric school busses connected to the grid.

They are only used for 4-6 hours a day and are stationary the rest. Perfect resource to keep plugged into the grid and help stabilize demand. Our initial study shows they could potentially pay for themselves, but at the very least subsidize their own cost quite significantly.

That looks more like a sunrise to me.

Meh, what do I know.

People who agree with 2 don't realize that they were those kids too and think that somehow there are kids somewhere that behave nicely because of perfect parenting.

Nope, most likely you just got to witness those kids on a bad day.

Save your judgement for yourself.

That my friend is the rare Capsicum annuum uterosi.

Or the super rare development of a uterus and filoppian tubes inside a green peeper.

Do not fuck, I REPEAT, DO NOT FUCK. It can result in conception and gestation of the aromaticus pilas cibum.

Yeah, for sure. I feel like she was one of the few that embraced it smartly. Not going all in, but but still capitalizing on its value without sucking it to cringe.

That would already be violated during the writing of said constitution.

I have to vastly disagree with this. The argument hat a gun is a necessity is disingenuous at best.

I love my guns, but too many fuckwads treat it like a toy or some sort of social justice equalizer. It has been proven to me time and again that we cant trust people with unfettered access to fire arms.

Y'all can't even have political discourse without being violent. So nope, you don't deserve to have the right to bear arms. (I mean "you" collectively and include myself in this hypothetical).

You are not supposed to operate a car without a license but somehow, trying to regulate guns is big brother trying to take away muh freedoms.

It just doesn't stand up to actual critical thought.