4 ms·

> Please do show a study which says that we need to ”strip mine the ocean floor”. It does sound like typical fossil lobby misinformation. Then why are companie

> Please do show a study which says that we need to ”strip mine the ocean floor”. It does sound like typical fossil lobby misinformation. Then why are companies gearing up to literally do this to satisfy the needs of battery manufacturing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIXbKptKSs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIXbKptKSs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW7CGTK-1vA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW7CGTK-1vA Denmark generates 20% of its energy from renewables which is about on par for what most countries see. Let's see how much those renewables start costing when you need to supplant the 80% of the energy grid which is still is still carbon producing. Which is my point - renewables can't scale past this threshold and trying to make them raises the costs exponentially. Compare this to France which has been >90% decarbonized in its grid since at least the 90s. Re fossil fuel propaganda, the number 1 supporters of renewables is the fossil fuel companies. It's not because it's the future but because it prolongs to the utmost the transition off of fossil fuels while appealing to the sensibilities of people who style themselves as "environmentalists". No country that has invested in renewables has yet managed to get off fossil fuels while France invested in nuclear & nearly completely decarbonized.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
How can you spread all this misinformation? Do you believe it yourself? Yes, there has been companies trying to exploit the ocean for mining for as long as we have been traveling the seas. There has yet to be a successful attempt at it. Then a lovely apples to oranges comparison comparing primary energy of one country to electricity mix of another. Lets do the real comparison, the one you did not want to do because it does not show France is as a favorable light: Primary energy mix using the substitution method[1]: - France: 51% low carbon - Denmark: 43% low carbon Then we have electricity mix [2]: - France: 92% low carbon - Denmark: 88% low carbon France is wholly unable to build nuclear power as evidenced by the Flamanville 3 program being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles due to the insane subsidies required, and now "hopefully" will reach an investment decision (i.e. the government decides on the subsidies) in 2026. We should keep our existing fleet of nuclear power as long as it is safe, needed and economical. But only someone with vested interest in the outcome of the nuclear industry would suggest wasting trillions of dollars on nuclear subsidies in 2025 given the state of renewables and storage. > No country that has invested in renewables has yet managed to get off fossil fuels while France invested in nuclear & nearly completely decarbonized. And the misinformation continues. When is France going to decarbonize the remaining 48% of their economy? [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-source-stacked?country=DNK~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-source-... [2]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

How can you spread all this misinformation? Do you believe it yourself? Yes, there has been companies trying to exploit the ocean for mining for as long as we have been traveling the seas. There has yet to be a successful attempt at it. Then a lovely apples to oranges comparison comparing primary energy of one country to electricity mix of another. Lets do the real comparison, the one you did not want to do because it does not show France is as a favorable light: Primary energy mix using the substitution method[1]: - France: 51% low carbon - Denmark: 43% low carbon Then we have electricity mix [2]: - France: 92% low carbon - Denmark: 88% low carbon France is wholly unable to build nuclear power as evidenced by the Flamanville 3 program being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles due to the insane subsidies required, and now "hopefully" will reach an investment decision (i.e. the government decides on the subsidies) in 2026. We should keep our existing fleet of nuclear power as long as it is safe, needed and economical. But only someone with vested interest in the outcome of the nuclear industry would suggest wasting trillions of dollars on nuclear subsidies in 2025 given the state of renewables and storage. > No country that has invested in renewables has yet managed to get off fossil fuels while France invested in nuclear & nearly completely decarbonized. And the misinformation continues. When is France going to decarbonize the remaining 48% of their economy? [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-source-stacked?country=DNK~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-source-... [2]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/