Sounds about USAish.

Chit should be driven down in cost so far we'd never think about the issue.

Start with the Maidan Revolution Революція гідності in February of 2014.

I agree but it is not the tipping point.

A good place to start is geographical military strategy from the Russian perspective. The next, Ukrainian aggression towards ethnic Russians and what that escalated to. Third, what NATO means to Russia from every angle.

You should do it from a very dry, non-opinionated, perspective.

I think it boils down to a single issue: The desire to drive renewable energy to the forefront.

It has nothing to do with renewable energy, which should be at the forefront for all countries, including Russia, who has committed to being zero carbon emissions by 2060.

It's no secret that Russia is the country that benefits the most from global warming, but even they acknowledge it.

I thought it was climate change? Global warming is oldspeak

Climate change is a consequence of global warming. Global warming is the main problem. People switched to "climate change" because global warming itself is a symptom of the larger problem of human economic activities polluting and changing the atmosphere and consequently, the climate.

Fake and gay.

The US could fight the renewable fight by producing so much energy, any other exporter could be bankrupted.

We could use the time and energy to advance the technology to to include non meltable reactors but instead the left and neocons whip global warming as a political item.

If we are good, we'd do thing right and right by people, even hard things.

I'm not buying the threat I will concede not polluting has to be instrumental in a humans health so a pragmatic person in general is down. However the political nature of your side's approach has ruined it. You want to give away our power as a nation without the aforementioned and we won't let you so here we are

It's neither fake nor gay. Global warming is real and a threat to humanity. It's not about giving up power since every great power has independently verified climate change's reality and mankind's influence on it. And the action to reduce emissions is an elective and cooperative one by virtually all countries. Just because our oil companies bullchit about it doesn't change the reality.

It's hard for people to understand how wrong Trump is on this, but he's wrong. Just like he was wrong to arm Ukraine, and just like he was wrong to say 17 x 6 = 112. Trump can be and is often wrong about things. He is not a scientist, and he has no idea what he is talking about regarding climate change.

We will go green whether we like it or not. It is in our interest to do so, and it will become essential in time. No amount of spin will change that. Does that mean we need to implement AOC's green new deal? No. That stuff is political and spun. But we do need to take serious steps to combat global warming and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, much to the chagrin of our esteemed oil barons.

I'm on no one's side btw. I'm just trying to prevent our species from destroying itself.

Then you should understand what I said. It's how to actually get it done. I'd love nothing more than to pay next to nothing while reducing pollution.

I am not willing to reduce my country's status. It's all death but if anyone can do it, it is us. Europe is a prime example in handing energy/sovereignty over in a green effort. It is complete self-inflicted stupidity.

Solve the most important problem first with nuclear, it's almost too easy.

Numbersguy thinks I was trolling- but I have a counter thought in post 2-6

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=181660483

Yea there are ways to do it sustainably. It is going to cost more. No two ways about that. It's always going to be more work than taking chit out of the ground and burning it. And nuclear is great but the startup costs are insane, and the waste can be a serious environmental hazard.

You're looking at potential positives, but the changes will be devastating to ecosystems and also cause mass migrations of people. You have also seen what has happened with increased frequency of wildfires. It won't be the bliss you think it will be.

Is it?

France is fuk’ed right now because of over-reliance on it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/france...ms-2022-08-30/

150-200,year outlook

Energy solution

-powerwall Technology and every home like Tessa‘s Powerwall- night charged, day use, grid sell back
-use electric vehicles as part of they network when plugged in to smart performance the grid - grid sell back when applicable
- solar arrays with the powerwalls as willing people can get them - again grid sell back

-geothermal HVAC systems every new build or major remodel
-frack and drill as much as we can



Also stop all wind turbine production - move the effort into powerwalls


https://www.tesla.com/powerwall


Being able to store wasted energy at night- take pressure off the grid during the day - and being able to sell back excess towards to the grid is game changing.


Wide scale use with solar here and there, better efficiency with geothermal HVAC


That will be enough - we already produce a chit ton of extra power we don’t use because of like of storage and efficiency.

Charging Electric cars can actually help the current grid as soon as we smart the grid up some.


We don’t need to do too much to make a big diff

That's maintenance issues. But yes, nuclear is very efficient. Just takes a long time to make up for the startup cost -- something like 30 yrs. And waste is an issue.

It's impossible to say. Honestly within 200 yrs from now, our chances are very high of having some kind of global thermonuclear war. So there's that...

There's not enough from solar to power the whole grid and meet demand. We need a bit of everything. We also rely heavily on fossil fuels for many other things. A sustainable economy is difficult to build. But we need to put more effort in than we are doing now.

Indeed

And that happens - and it’s been devastating this year.


I’m still open to whatever - but I’m skeptical of going large scale as a grid solution.



This is an old article, and I’m not sure, but what’s your opinion about this?



https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclea...ld-energy.html

Absolutely not, I wouldn’t want anything I typed to be perceived as eluding to such.


I feel like I demonstrated that in my plan.

Also 95% of power wall set ups won’t have any solar working with it.

They are right. There isn't enough. We need more nuclear, but it can't meet the demand. I mean there are some possible innovations like Thorium reactors.

I don’t see the point.

-Eventual downtime at the most inconvenient times
-resource intensive for resources we don’t have enough of
-waste
-expensive start up
-water issues - as well as water dependency issues (see France)
-can’t large scale
-remote, but possible, disaster
-security issues, etc

The above plan I shows will make our current grid way way way more efficient without even having to add much more.

And we have wayyyy more natural gas than we need, with those added efficiencies.

And that would enable us to use just enough natural gas to maintain our must needed atmospheric co2 levels- and hopefully a slight increase

do you know of the orange revolution in 2004/2005?

Why would you want to increase CO2 levels? And the reason to use nuclear where possible is its incredible efficiency.

Many reasons I posted earlier.

In addition…





















We have an opportunity to make life much better long-term- with a few uncomfortable weatherpoints during transition to a constant less glaciation state.


The axis tilt - as referenced in the Milankovitch cycle- could be heading towards an increase glaciation and we have the opportunity to prevent it.


https://energyeducation.ca/encyclope...nkovitch_cycle

There have been multiple studies showing that plant growth won't improve much for the kinds of crops we care about, and that specifically wheat production can be expected to decline. You base a lot of what you are saying on Massie's opinion. I'll remind you that Massie has no expertise in atmospheric physics, agriculture, or meteorology. That CO2 levels increasing in our atmosphere will be good for plants is a highly simplistic inference. There are changes in precipitation, nitrogen levels, etc. Note Massie said the PARTIAL derivative, and not the total. Point being, holding all other factors constant, sure, more CO2 helps. But in the real world, more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures as well as changes in how nitrogen is stored in soil and how much water is deposited. There have been studies on this, and the future doesn't look that promising.

Regarding long term changes in solar exposure causing a cooling, that is not an immediate threat. You're talking about stuff 10s of thousands of years from now while not prioritizing chit that will affect us in your lifetime.

co2 emission lmao. remember the ozone layer hole guys we gonna die any second now.. maledives will disappear in the oceans for the 100th time any day now.. totally not a flimsy pretense made up by club of rome rockefeller etc do dupe buffoons



remember eat bugs and get a vasectomy to change the weather

I’ve said my arguments on this and multiple threads, no more derailing from me past this.

I will mention a few things though

Regarding massie - i’ve actually made the same argument before posting anything of hers or even noticing it until a week or so ago- but he does have a self-sustained farm, and off the grid compound, where he grows his an agriculture and life stock.- including underground greenhouses- He actually has studying agriculture - not that it really matters for this convo.





The only idea that you need to be an atmospheric physics expert alone is silly - that along with many other fields is necessary.


-geologist(field I studied)
-chemist(field I partial studied)
-marine botanist
-marine biologist
-Botany
-thermodynamics engineer

Etc etc etc


It takes a broad depth of fields to put all the pieces together.

As far at the increased simple plants yes- and especially phytoplankton- which will produce a considerable amount of more oxygen….

Many many other aspects


Anyway- try and watch that video - it’s interesting

Also- dudes on full self power with solar cells, a repurposed battery from a crashed Tesla , controlled by a raspberry pi computer

You guys always cite this one sources of a dude who is tied to energy companies and makes profit of the panic and rising prices estimates that 85% will last 2.5 months and he already was (probably purposefully) wrong about how long the filling would take.
He's also making his assumption without any counter measure taken (which there are already with coal and nuclear plants supplying power to the grid longer than sheduled). With the support via other pipelines, LNG and Gas saving measures, there are experts estimating that full reserves can get you through the next winter as well.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/inn...icher-101.html

Vatniks are losing and their last resort is praying euros will freeze this winter so they put pressure on governments to drop sanctions

Ayyyy let's see how that plays out