ThomPete

98 ms·

961.
by ThomPete 7y ago
But who simulate the aliens then?
962.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The outcome is also better lives, less sickness, healthy crops etc. yes there are drawbacks but the goal isnt just good or bad its good and bad, the discussion we can have is whether is more good than bad or vice versa.
963.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Ate they wrong about the current situation?
964.
by ThomPete 7y ago
And the best way to arm the poorest so they can deal with the consequences is to give them access to cheap reliable energy.
965.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Again no. Fuel cells that can be used for wind and solar to store their energy isn't close at all it's not just cost it's also the physics.
966.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You can call it silly all you want it doesn't change the facts. We aren't close to doing anything even in rich countries. Wind and solar is less than 1% of world energy. And even in countries that are rich the cost is pushed onto
967.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Energy density isn't arbitrary. It normally means something can be used in compact form (batteries, oil, gasoline, coal, uranium) and deliver energy at will. Look at the capacity factor of wind and solar, add to that the huge areas the
968.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are talking about electricity, not energy. Electricity is only ~20% of the entire energy usage as far as I remember.
969.
by ThomPete 7y ago
And you can use them to power your watch perfectly fine too. That doesn't mean it will work at scale for society which is the primary issue. The key thing to look for is energy density as that will be more likely to give society a bang
970.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Those patents aren't about fundamentals in physics. This is a physics problem not a product/market problem. There are plenty of patents on energy just not many fundamental breakthroughs.
971.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Oh, it's definitely amazing relative to where it was, just not to where it needs to be to compete. Solar and wind is less than 1% of world energy consumption and is not expected to be more than 3-4% in 2040. Energy is not a product&#x2
972.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There are many types of fuel cells. I am talking about the kind of fuel cells which can be used by wind and solar to store energy and distributed economically feasible. We are not even close to that. If you know of anything, by all means, p
973.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The primary issue with everything in this category is that plenty of things are possible in the lab or in theory which just isn't possible when applied in reality and at scale. Blame journalists for hyping this because of the climate c
974.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You don't just have a cellphone. You have ambulances, you have food, you have medicine, you have heat, you have buildings, you have more or less 80% of your surroundings based on fossil fuels. In other words, there would be much less p
975.
by ThomPete 7y ago
It's not that simple and my guess is that the AG wont win it (neither do they care to) Unless it can be demonstrated scientifically that humans are the primary cause of climate change (despite what you hear that causality is not establ
976.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I understand the field perfectly well, well enough to know a thing or two about capacity factors. It's not a question of cost but of simple physics. Batteries aren't going to solve anything what so ever. We would need fuel cells w
977.
by ThomPete 7y ago
"expecting" is the problem word here. That means absolutely nothing. Its marketing talk with no real foundation in reality. Gasoline and coal will be phased out but it's not because of wind and solar as they literally can&#x2
978.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I said investments in renewables are decreasing especially when you remove china. That's what the article talks about and that the reality. You can look for other sources which will tell you the same. Investments in wind and solar desp
979.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Nope, I think you are confusing it with electricity. Electricity is only a subset of energy. https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_...
980.
by ThomPete 7y ago
https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-inve...
981.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Not even close to be useful alternatives.
982.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Which is not true as renewables need backup energy which isnt calculated in. Investments into renewables is falling and stagnating not increasing.
983.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What are you talking about? Oil makes the environment cleaner not dirtier. Do you know how many wells are naturally polluted by nature? How uninhabitable large parts of the world would be if it wasn't for the use of fossil fuels? You r
984.
by ThomPete 7y ago
No I am not wrong on any of this stuff. Solar and wind aren't projected to be more than around 3%-4% in 2040 there is nothing exponential about that at all. They cant compete and have made energy more expensive in ex. germany and Denma
985.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Is it cheap? Is it only cheap because we subsidize the externalities they impose? When you factor in the positive externalities I think it's safe to say it's pretty cheap yes. It's a finite resource but we get better and bett
986.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I thought it was a pretty simple argument though. We won't abandon hydrocarbon sources anytime soon because there aren't any alternatives no matter what gets written in articles from people who want to abolish it.
987.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Which renewables are you referring to? What renewables can both give us plastic, pesticides, concrete? What renewables can deliver cheap, reliable, scalable energy anywhere needed? The most popular forms of renewables like wind and solar ar
988.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Sorry but this is wishful thinking to say the least. Oil, coal and gas not only are cheap, reliable, plentiful and versatile materials we have learned to turn into an excellent source for transportation, they are also used for many other th
989.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I am unconvinced about this claim. Sure there are a lot of movements towards getting cars out of the city, but very little is done to compensate for how to get resources in and out so it will naturally have limits.
990.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The hazards of nuclear power are less than the hazards of not having cheap and plentiful energy.

More ›