Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LN
Posts
126
Comments
709
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • thanks for engaging. i think we agree on many of these things. the only difference I'll lean into is that this piece correspondes to legislation.

    I think it does correspond as I described. Should it? Another thing we agree on.

  • I'm interested in energy in general. Seems like you picked up on that. It's a complex topic that combines physics, chemistry, economics, politics, and our ecosystem.

    When replying to others on Lemmy, it's good to get to the point or have a TLDR. Seems like you picked up on my tendency to do others this favor as well.

    Frankly, I don't care what people think of me or if they think I'm genuine. I derive my sense of self and esteem from my self. With that said, I enjoyed chatting with the other Lemmy. Hope they did too

  • One of the reasons i posted it is because it's not a common position, but one that appears to correspond with legislation. For example, California just passed a measure to reduce subsidies for rooftop solar.

    then to your points(ordered to match the ones provided):

    • the first one is whataboutism
    • couple things for the second: 1 - yeah, probably a fossil fuel funded source. 2 - does that mean they're wrong? American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren't wrong then. Who gets to choose when they're right and when they're wrong?
    • covered in the the previous bullet
    • I said the examples are based, not the article

    if someone has motivation to say something, it doesn't mean they're wrong. it means something else.

  • The thing is, it's true that offshore projects have struggled. You've ignored that and said that the article is bullshit.

    I actually think the article is FUD, but the examples they use are based.

    I could, just as easily as you did, say your articles are lib bullshit and dismiss everything you say. The thing is this line of discussion is flawed. Don't ya think?

    here they come

  • achtually...

    PV requires more space per watt, the batteries required for storage of PV are very dangerous if not handled correctly, and it's well known that the heavy metals used to manufacture PV cells are very toxic.

    further, PV is distributed which means the heavy metals are in our communities unlike a centralized system of molten salt

  • It could be if a three fold increase in renewable production from current levels outpaces demand growth over the same period. If it doesn't, then it won't.

    I suspect that if it did out pace demand growth, they would have mentioned it because that would be remarkable, and the arithmetic to see if this would happen isn't challenging