Probably a lot of the rise of the far right is due to fossil fuel funding of anti-renewable narratives, and if push comes to shove they will back anti-democratic politics if they think they can get a few more years profit out of it (e.g. Trump regime). Do that kind of thing, and wars follow.

I think oil company PR departments took a good long look at these concepts and decided they didn't have legs; too implausible even for them and that's saying a lot

Their current efforts are feeble; this is true. I challenge you to look at a map to see where Korea actually is; it is ideal for solar. I can't speak to whether wind power is viable there. Given that you don't know seem to know where Korea actually is, I suspect neither can you.

The EGRUiEN Scientific Expert Advisory Board is currently holding an online meeting attended by Board members and project teams. Together, we are reviewing the latest developments and discussing the next steps in the project’s implementation.

I did the math on mine, and it pays for itself in about 8 years. I don't know how long I'll live, but I certainly hope at least that long. They may well outlast me , but if so, my kids will get them.

📢 NEW EGRUIEN POLICY BRIEF

We’re excited to share a new short policy paper based on research from WP3 & WP4. The brief highlights key policy implications and translates project findings into an accessible, non-technical format tailored for policymakers and stakeholders.

💡 What can we learn from past negotiations between unions and employers? How can these experiences inform future transition policies under the twin green and digital transformation?

👉 Read the full policy brief: egruien.eu/en/research/...

Noone can give you an answer, since there are too many variables. Consider the price of gas vs. electric. Gas goes up and down and skyrockets with every crisis. Electricity gets cheaper as solar expands. Unless it is stopped because of politics. Look in your crystal ball: the answer is there.

so, that would be a, "no I don't have any stake in the world having a stable climate."

We might need to buy some batteries, and pursue other well-known strategies for dealing with this variability. So, in theory it would be a trade-off if it wasn't totally in our capacity to deal with it, but it is, so it isn't. 5 years ago this was a totally convincing oil company talking point.

There is, actually: reduce fossil fuel use, and increase renewables. Cheaper, local, cleaner, more reliable, more secure. Keep at it until there is no more fossil fuel use in energy. The trade-off is that oil billionaires lose lots of money. Sad, but this is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

you know what's also against international law?: war crimes, genocide, wars of aggression. Becoming an accessory to these sorts of crimes just to keep to an agreement with a dictator on a murderous rampage is unconscionable. It is also very, very stupid.

weak

Britain is bound by much more important and convincing international law to disallow it.

On their way to commit war crimes, shame on Britain for allowing it

Rationing is the way to deal with this. Just put a hard limit on each individual's wasteful consumption of certain goods like fuel, air tickets. Which has about zero chance of happening - but we do know how to solve it.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I bought my Volvo D60, which was a good car for 2016. My driving pattern is pretty similar. It does kinda save fuel, but maintenance is high. I'm thinking of buying now and there are many better full EV options. Maybe not if you live in the US though.

I have a plug in hybrid and don't advise those (though it is better than ICE). There are always Swasticars. Wouldn't want to be seen in one myself for political reasons, but then I live in Finland and we have lots of options.

It's impossible to know if AI is an existential threat. As AI gets more capable, it stops being up to *humans* any more: it will be the AI that decides our future. And whether or not we get to have a future. Beyond a certain point, we don't get a vote. Have a nice day.

These are really good. I'll definitely be reading everything she writes.

Meanwhile, the reaction of an actual dog to a robot is one of first mild curiosity and subsequent indifference. The robot was on its return journey to the supermarket, however; on the outward journey it might have been more interesting.

Bluesky literally is a town square. If you want to chat with just your friends, use Signal.

New study finds most electricity (~90%; residual needs provided by fuels) can be provided by renewables & storage as the renewable energy system is built out. As technology is deployed, costs will continue to drop due to enhanced learning curves. Which world should we build? 🧪🔌💡☀️💨💧🔋

AI is producing a crisis of garbage writing and garbage science. We can screen it out, though some might slip through, but the review system might collapse on its own weight, as it was starting to do already before AI. Not sure how to fix it, since AI is useful, and is not going away.

The utility when used appropriately is clear, but there is a tendency give it authority: "if AI says it, it is correct". AI produces the kind of text that at first glance seems ok, and you have to read closely to see that there is no actual content. A big time waster.

I am torn on the use of LLMs. The line between using AI for grammar, and general text production is thin. I see lots of AI garbage - content free text, words in a row. But also students who use it to help express their own thoughts. Which I also do, when writing in Finnish (not my native language)

what a massively stupid argument. "You shouldn't replace the expensive thing with the cheap thing because it will be more expensive."

Subsidize EVs, solar panels, heat pumps. Get the gas and diesel burners off the road. Help people move to a permanent solution.

Has he been living in cave for the past year? Or is he just massively stupid?

This is a bad idea, and is wrong and should not happen.