A house, land, hobbies, an emergency fund in case needing time away from work, investments, nicer things, a stay-home wife, children, traveling, supporting loved ones, there are so many possible reasons.
Omnipotence just means being able to do whatever power can do. So it is incoherent to ask if God could make a square circle. The words don’t mean anything.
God could make a burrito too hot for himself to eat. Then he could make himself capable of eating it. Rinse and repeat.
Subsidize produce too. The point of the subsidies is to normalize reliable access to food. Otherwise during low seasons, farmers would get wiped out and it would compromise food security.
> “We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry -– also on the other side of 2030,” its head Maria Reumert Gjerding said after the talks in which they took part.
Yikes. All this is is a successful attempt by the ruling class to convince the subjugated to give up even more rights and freedoms. “It’s for your own good” on steroids. If you want to see clear proof of this, just note that on the strict numbers, this practice won’t meaningfully move the needle on the climate issue. In fact, will it even move the needle overall? Once you feed the animals better, namely with some seaweed incorporated into cow feed in particular, this total emission from these sources drops by some 80% or more. But of course that solution won’t do, because the entire point of these co2 laws is to have more control over people’s lives rather than to solve problems. If climate change ended tomorrow, these same people would try to push the same laws because the intention is to control the masses and to tax people more to feed the bureaucracy machine.
People should be wary of hall monitors and bureaucrats aiming for “restructuring” of food systems, especially for moral posturing reasons. In history that tends to lead to starvation.
Right, but the hall monitors don’t grant that benefit of the doubt to others in the first place. Otherwise what parent pointed out wouldn’t be the case.
Based on this Chat Control debacle, sounds like the people saying that have no idea what they’re talking about and should be encouraged to shut up or to be more precise and rigorous in their arguments lol
> If you ever read an article on a subject with which you have a lot of first-hand experience, you’ll notice that they always get major things wrong – basic facts, dates, names of people and organizations, the stated intentions of involved parties, the reasons a thing is happening – things even a novice in the space would know better about.
> Now think about all the articles you read about subjects that you don't know much about, why would the accuracy be any higher on those ones?
Why wouldn't the accuracy be higher? Extrapolating that way from limited experience is not something I would personally do. I would read everything, learn gradually, and continue learning and testing information with experiments and more information.
That depends on how much more efficient solar panels get and what future energy requirements are, but in any case it'll be worse to scale energy creation with solar than with nuclear.
Getting only 1,000 times more than humans are using now but requiring 50% of the earth's surface seems like an awful deal. Not only do you need much more of the earth's surface, taking away from trees and habitats and other uses, but you need to significantly increase mining activities to produce the panels and their associated infrastructure. Whereas to get 15,000 additional terawawtts from more nuclear reactors, you could do that with 1,200 - 1,900 additional nuclear reactors occupying just the size of Rhode Island.
What would surface area needs be like for over-provisioning needs in the US? What if we want to scale energy production by 2x or 10x or 100x for advanced industrial and commercial usage needs in the future? I think then the solar panel approach becomes limited on earth.
You’re right that the panels don’t degrade a ton. I read online that after 20-30 years they might drop 15% efficiency. For residential usage that might be okay, but it does mean needing upkeep and worrying about baseline potential dropping, which in some climates could be bad.
I do think a combination of the technologies is best, since scaling up energy production will be simpler and easier and more resource-friendly with nuclear than with more solar. Moving up the Kardashev scale will require capturing all the energy that can be captured from all sources so why let any go to waste. :)
Should still maintain infrastructure for gas for the foreseeable future just in case of EMP. Coal too. That valuable knowledge should not be lost in case we ever need to go back to simpler ways as well.
How do you scale up to producing far more energy in that approach? What about the efficiency to produce large amounts of energy on large spacecraft and other planets and in the ocean?
Are there hvdc transmission lines already spanning those kinds of distances? How much raw material and upkeep does that require? If over-provisioning solar, how much more surface area would be needed to have the solar? Seems like the additional costs would pile up to get to current energy needs being met by just solar.
Yeah, I think people looking at just the upfront cost are not really acknowledging or addressing that solar panel installations degrade faster than a nuclear reactor. They also take up more space and as you mentioned will likely end up causing more damage to produce at planetary scale. They are definitely great when coupled with batteries for many use cases including decentralizing aspects of the grid for residential and smaller scale usages, but the raw performance of nuclear is impressive and exciting. So little inputs needed for how much you get, and for how long too. There are old reactors still producing after over 50 years…that is mind-boggling.
Who knows how far the tech can be pushed with modern advancements and less blockers on developing the technology further. It should be in the toolbox as part of a strategy for renewable energy needs on Earth and beyond.
You have to show exuberance when demonstrating your brand loyalty, otherwise you’re not loyal enough to pass the ad. You’ll need to watch the entire reeducation, I mean ad, in that case.
Legislation could easily be crafted to block even contractor firms from circumventing the requirement. Either way, someone remoting in from abroad would have to get a visa. This will solve the problem. It's definitely coming, because to work domestically they'd need a visa...so doing the work remotely is not an exemption to that.