This is delusion. It won't be forever, but in this moment, it is.Uh-huh, and we have the capability to stop relying on oil and transfer off, without cataclysmic upheaval.
Firstly: share value is supposed to be based on the ability of the holder to liquidise it and get that price under existing supply. That's where the "extra" value comes from: purchasers of the share.But the extra value did come from nowhere. Like Jeff Bozo has a bunch of amazon shares, most of these hes had since the beginning and never sold, these have greatly increase in value. If that extra value didn't come from nowhere, where did it come from? Who lost all of that money for him to become richer?
It's delusion to just endlessly consume fossil fuels-- finite, globally-destructive, reliant on despots across the globe-- when alternatives are readily available.This is delusion. It won't be forever, but in this moment, it is.
How many of those places produce all their own things? Probably none. How many of them bought a giant pile of stuff from China, with materials sourced from around the world, to beef up their renewables? Probably all. You can't just suppose that if every place had the same political will they could all do the same thing at once when the thing in question involves global resource limitations.What exactly is making it so impossible to increase energy generation from renewable/nuclear sources? I mean, numerous countries have already been able to shift large proportions of their energy source from fossil to renewable/nuclear. They've literally already done it, in a matter of years, with the investment and political will. What exactly makes it "delusional" to demand other countries kick-start that same journey?
Oh, its an unacceptable cost to import materials to build renewable capacity, is it? The same countries would otherwise be importing oil and gas from Russia, Saudi Arabia etc. Importing materials may be required for some. That's a drop in the ocean and leads to greater self-sufficiency long-term, as they're then able to generate their own energy in the future.How many of those places produce all their own things? Probably none. How many of them bought a giant pile of stuff from China, with materials sourced from around the world, to beef up their renewables? Probably all.
Once again, "everything must happen immediately and simultaneously and thats unattainable" is a laughable strawman designed to discourage any progress towards the goal.You can't just suppose that if every place had the same political will they could all do the same thing at once when the thing in question involves global resource limitations.
I feel like you understood the point based on what you said after this, this sentence is missing the point by a mile though. It has nothing to do with imports being bad and everything to do with imports not being the answer for everywhere all at once.Oh, its an unacceptable cost to import materials to build renewable capacity, is it?
No, it isn't. As always, you are not the sole perspective left of center, talking about a left-wing perspective you don't personally have does not make it a strawman. You can try to laugh off the existence of crazy people all you want, it only makes you look silly.Once again, "everything must happen immediately and simultaneously and thats unattainable" is a laughable strawman designed to discourage any progress towards the goal.
Nobody advocated for slowing down our transition now.And why are those theoretical limits of what would happen if everyone wanted to transition to all renewables at once any reason to slow down our current transition now ?
Way too many people do.Nobody advocated for slowing down our transition now.
But imports of fossil fuels, on and on and into the future, remains the answer? Continuing fossil fuel addiction requires a far greater scale of importing.I feel like you understood the point based on what you said after this, this sentence is missing the point by a mile though. It has nothing to do with imports being bad and everything to do with imports not being the answer for everywhere all at once.
I'm not the sole perspective. But I can look at the green parties and the environmental movements as they actually exist, and engage with their perspectives. And none of them-- none of any note-- are pursuing the line you're ascribing to the green movement. Its a line manufactured by its opponents to undermine it.No, it isn't. As always, you are not the sole perspective left of center, talking about a left-wing perspective you don't personally have does not make it a strawman. You can try to laugh off the existence of crazy people all you want, it only makes you look silly.
They want to keep things comfortable for themselves until they're safely dead and in the ground, and the rest of us can live in the hell their obstructionism has created.Instead people want to push EVs further into the future.
"We should wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and seek sustainable alternatives to beef."Its a line manufactured by its opponents to undermine it.
The argument here "popped up" because political parties with elected representation are advocating for the end of nuclear power generation. If the conversation about steps in the right direction includes turning off clean energy from a power grid that needs to expand significantly to cut out fossil fuels, it's a dumb conversation, and we need to excise that dumb before anything else is considered.And the "but we can't switch all at once" argument conveniently pops up every time people talk about actual practical measures to distract from possible steps in the right direction. Instead of talking about what can be done and actually doing it, if forces associations of green transition with impossible goals and proponents of it with delusional fantasts.
It is a classic misdirection. It is not the only one in the arsenal of the fossil lobby, but a well known one.
unless you count the workers that were exploited to generate the profit (or, indeed, the expectation of profit) which is the underlying reason that people want to own stocks.They own share who they buy at low value and keep while their value increase, which doesn't cost anyone anything.
Transition to renewables takes time and resources. The more you need, the longer it takes. Turning off nuclear makes phasing out fossil fuels take longer.Nuclear power is a separate issue. And while some green groups strongly like/dislike it, i don't see any advocating to shut it down in contact of transition off fossil fuels.
As for the future, no, expanding nuclear is not going to solve much. It takes way too long to build, is nowadays more expensive than wind/photovoltaics in most situations and, most importantly, we don't have enough uranium to satisfy significant parts of the world energy needs. It is useful to keep the existing plants running but that's it.
That is why it rarely enters conversation.
Good hing then that i never advocated for turning them off.Turning off nuclear makes phasing out fossil fuels take longer.
Not if we build more nuclear plants all over the world. If just the majority of actually plants that are now in an early planning stage are built, we run out of (reasonably accessable) uranium in 20 years. Which is less than all those plants even plan for. And we would need even far more if we want to solve the energy transition by using primarily nuclear.We do have the uranium in hand to last a century right now, we know of enough uranium to power the world solo for billions of years.
I am physicist who actually took part in conferences about nuclear power plants and future projects and perspectives. And i worked in particle physics for several of my postdoc years. Unless you have a PhD specifically in nuclear physics specifically, my credentials regarding that topic are likely way better than yours.Nuclear must never come into your conversations, as you seem to have zero knowledge of it.
As a PhD you are probably accustomed to citing your sources. I am curious about potential uranium. Do you have a source on it lasting for 20 years?I am physicist who actually took part in conferences about nuclear power plants and future projects and perspectives. And i worked in particle physics for several of my postdoc years. Unless you have a PhD specifically in nuclear physics specifically, my credentials regarding that topic are likely way better than yours.
Unfortunately not. I have that from a couple of talks from people working at the IAEA about projections of future nuclear usage at conferences in Dresden and Berlin not quite a decade ago. So it is not even completely up to date, but i have not heard of any significant developments changing the conclusions.As a PhD you are probably accustomed to citing your sources. I am curious about potential uranium. Do you have a source on it lasting for 20 years?
Cautiously optimistic.I also wonder what you think about ITER?
Tell me why this is wrong: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/Not if we build more nuclear plants all over the world. If just the majority of actually plants that are now in an early planning stage are built, we run out of (reasonably accessable) uranium in 20 years. Which is less than all those plants even plan for. And we would need even far more if we want to solve the energy transition by using primarily nuclear.
Credentialism is a trap to make smart people say stupid things. You are saying stupid things right now, and don't imagine how that could be, cause of the credentials. Open your imagination to your own limitations.I am physicist who actually took part in conferences about nuclear power plants and future projects and perspectives. And i worked in particle physics for several of my postdoc years. Unless you have a PhD specifically in nuclear physics specifically, my credentials regarding that topic are likely way better than yours.