I wish people would quote firm capacity or time over 50% in these. Number of hours you could use two of them for all your needs is much more interesting than mean.

> IT was not my set of papers but yours

And it demonstrates the opposite of what you are claiming on multiple levels.

> How do you see famine in a hotter world, hotter world=more food production.

Because desertification, mass floods and giant storms never disrupt food production.

You're clearly not interested in truth or logic here.

A single year of increased attention does not a global consensus make -- especially when your set of papers includes one where the author was talking about both warming from CO2 and cooling from aerosols and changed his mind as to which was larger after seeing more evidence. That's almost as stupid a stretch as including any article that contains the word cooling. And I guarantee you don't want the famines, global instability, snap freezes, and storms that go with your wish.

On top of that the 'hur durr them fought it was gunna get cuuld' argument is utterly morally bankrupt anyway.

Both effects are real. Both effects were fairly widely agreed to be significant since the 60s.

Not knowing which was bigger or more permanent and which way fossil fuels were going to fuck everyone isn't a reason that 'stop using fossil fuels' hasn't been the objectively scientifically correct position for the better part of 70 years.

Any sane society would have started the renewable transition in the 40s when wind turbines were first proven viable (or paid attention to the firstcommercial solar panel in 1906) as the risks of aerosols were fairly universally accepted even if CO2 was still up in the air.

"People" here being fossil fuel propagandists. You don't get to use your own lies to try and claim the truth is a lie. And there's no legitimate argument on the cause or that higher temperature would be good. The consensus wasn't overwhelming in the 70s but it was by far the majority position since the late 60s

https://miro.medium.com/max/1100/1*jcmooyqbb8mt0qUhRBtwYQ.webp

https://dpiepgrass.medium.com/1970s-agw-consensus-3123a34e5105

That was the same climate deniers we're fighting now taking a tiny seed of valid science from a small minority of papers that were a decade old and where most of the scientists had changed their minds and using it to spread fud. You can't use your own bullshit to try and discredit people who know what they're doing.

> This is a criticism of mining in general. Solar is actually the most mining-intensive way to make a kWh.

Anything to back that up that isn't an LCA of a decade old system of a completely different chemistry with 1/4 of the efficiency on a heavy 2 axis tracking rig?

> I'm not opposed to solar, though I'd prefer see it on rooftops rather than encroaching on nature. I understand some portion of the world's energy will come from solar but it bothers me when people extrapolate it to 100% with no concern about reliability or land and materials use.

Solar is the least materials heavy and least land consuming energy source other than gas. 20-50t of silver and 40-80t of lead per net GW are the only mining intensive materials, and both are dropping rapidly.

https://www.vdma.org/international-technology-roadmap-photovoltaic

> Nuclear needs to be included and even the IEA says:

Needing a few GW of nuclear in a handful of countries wouldn't support any of your arguments even if the IEA hadn't been consistently wrong about the role of renewables for the last 15 years to the point where at times they've "projected" 2050 costs and deployment rates to be lower than the rates when their projections were published.

They do that every year.

https://zenmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png

50% YoY growth in the face of massive supply chain issues seems like doing well to me.

They're also playing the colonialism and energy game pretty hard. "Investments" in hydrogen and renewable infrastructure all over the world (as well as at home).

Ammonia won't be as lucrative as oil and gas, but they still have some top tier energy resources, an easy market, and are working hard to position themselves to control and profit from potential competitors.

Hopefully the autocracy collapses anyway.

> I don't recall uranium being part of the discussion but slavery? There's none I know of but maybe it exists somewhere.

Oh I just assumed seeing as you were running the standard fossil fuel wE nEeD NuClEaR grift that you'd said it already. If you were just concern trolling with nothing positive to contribute then you're just skipping that step and going straight for keeping the oh so slavery free fossil fuel industry around without the pretense.

There's the exact same level of evidence for Uranium miningnslavery as polysilicon. Coal and oil powered regions with high slavery index exporting the product. Applies to Uzbekistan, Niger, and Turkmenistan at least. And then there's the nice men from Rio Tinto that hold on to your passport for you if you're a migrant laborer in Australia and give you a place to stay for only 80% of your wage, and basic services for 30% of your wage and will only fly you home if you pay the debt off. If your proposed alternative is fossil fuels then there's plenty worse than that in the world.

> And there were problems with uranium mining but this was at the dawn of the Cold War and mostly for weapons production.

> Today there are still problems with China's uranium mining in Namibia. This is <10% of global production and a symptom of a bigger problem with China and not representative of the rest of the industry.

Huh. So you're saying political problems aren't an inherent part of a technology and can be addressed? Almost exactly like the EU and US are doing right now? Almost like this topic only came up as a reactionary attempt at a Gish Gallop immediately after your other lie was refuted in spite of you knowing this.

Funny how that goes the exact same way every time.

I called out your slimy tactics of poiting out a political issue as if it were a technical issue and that you're pretending that the majority of uranium mining doesn't have the exact same problems (except that there is a long documented history of intentionally misleading native people and putting them into uranium mines with no PPE and poisoning their land rather than just being in an area where exploitation is happening and is putting no effort into stopping it) and you followed the pattern to a tee.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

Your pathetic slimy tactics of trying to shift the narrative are completely transparent. If it's a problem then buy some of the 50% of panels available outside China that have no silicon from xinjiang. Or support the 10s of GW of plant being built everywhere on the planet rather than fighting to keep coal relevant.

Go work in Yining uranium mine until you die of lung cancer.

Their bike lanes aren't full of microcars because they're restricted, scooters are a big problem, and there are ongoing efforts to improve safety.

If you don't want to be condescended to, then don't copy-paste frossil fuel propaganda from shellenberger.org and pretend you've contributed something original or positive.

Ohhh, I thought you were making a good faith mistake. My apologies, I didn't realise you were trying to concern troll.

The reason is because it wasn't cheaper when they were built. That feedback loop is only just closing now. But by a shocking coincidence that couldn't possibly be related, that's also where the good solar and wind resource in the country is.

As of a few years ago 5 of the 5 largest solar parks in the world were in the same region.

Now there are a fair few bigger ones in some other areas.

...which are all also building multi GW polysilicon facilities nearby.

This wildly incorrect but somehow draws an accurate conclusion. The largest commodity is polysilicon, which is basically just energy and is increasingly made with solar because it's cheapest, so that limit is precisely the closed loop feedback that leads to exponential improvement. The rest is mostly glass (energy again). Both are made with silica sand as a raw material which is not limiting in the quantities the solar industry uses (and its shape is less important so if conventional supply chains become limiting, about a third of the world's deserts can be used). Silver is a significant cost, but is more limited by potentially hitting production limits (and thus changing prices) rather than the cost of the quantity involved.

Material consumption is also falling. Wafers are getting thinner, metal traces are getting thinner. Silver fraction in pastes is falling. Steel and concrete content of mounting systems is falling.

As a result, BOS is starting to dominate costs (handling panels, earthworks, permitting, sales). So the main channel for decreasing costs in the next few years is increasing efficiency (and thus power per area/weight), and increasing plant size + colocation with wind and batteries. Single junction silicon is almost tapped out in the first, so continued cost decreases hinge on tandem cells of some kind working out (odds for perovskite look pretty good).

> They could use the same infrastructure as bikes lol.

Well no. If it's status quo rather than disability and elderly only then you're just making the bike paths uninhabitable by children, new riders, etc.

> Or are you implying bikes don't need parking lots and roads?

It's a matter of density. A 4m wide train line can take 80,000 people an hour. A 4m wide bike lane can move 10,000-20,000 people an hour. A car park sized spot can fit 40 bicycles vs 10 mopeds or 3 of these. A folding bike can fit under your desk, as can an escooter. Doubling or tripling your capacity and reducing danger with LEVs is appropriate for some areas, but there are no silver bullets.

You need local streets heavily biased towards smaller vehicles and transit and active transport pathways safe enough that you see a 60 year old grandma biking to the shops next to their 3 yo grandkid.

They're not a viable 'instead' though as they also don't offer the upsides of those options. A 4 wheel LEV parking lot and road system will occupy 30% of your city rather than 75%, it still needs a sober adult without any balance, sleep or coordination disorders, it is still dangerous, it still makes outdoor spaces horrible to be in if you have enough of them to move everyone. It needs to be an 'as well'.

I was more thinking something like this moving at 40. Also without a car-free sample you can't distinguish the danger caused by a scooter from the danger caused by not being protected from a car (statistically death and injury rates are heavily skewed towards crashes involving a car) and high speed motorcycles are frequently lumped in with low speed.

They'll also get several huge benefits that the global north is trying their absolute best to avoid.

Small EVs with swappable batteries are safer, more convenient, less damaging to their surroundings, and battery swapping stations provide arbitrage and grid stability rather than superchargers which increase peak demand and reduce stability.

This is a lie. The exact crops (soy and corn) fed to the cows with a bit of fermentation to reduce calorie density and create some micronutrients cover most of your bases.

Small quantities of a much less crop intensive animal protein cover the rest.

This is true historically, but costs are starting to be dominated by "picking up a big rectangle twice and screwing it down" or "finding someone with a flat surface that wants power and putting some stakes in the ground".

These will also come down. For example Fraunhofer is trialling a system where the panels come hinged and connected out of the factory and you just drag them out in a straight line onto the ground right out of the container. Also increasing panel efficiency means less handling per watt.

I'd expect the top end of the S curve to start becoming apparent at about 30c/watt for utility or $1/W for rooftop.

The volcanoes are doing everything bad myth comes from a cult started by a Ukranian chiropractor and is funded by a bunch of right wing think tanks.

> which leads to a lot of power loss on the way

HVDC is expensive, but not that lossy. Crossing China the losses are still dominated by the interconnect.