• Waryle@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That’s some nice fanfic you wrote but I don’t think we should base our real world decisions on your little ideas.

    Point the flaws in my logic, debate my ideas, or just leave. Don’t waste your time making another reply if you can’t keep respectful, I won’t bother reading it.

    It’s very easy to find this information so I can only assume you’re arguing in bad faith, but regardless, here are a few starting points for your research. You could also maybe just search it yourself instead of wasting my time and yours with your ridiculous example of a single hydroelectric dam.

    Asking for sources and data to support a disputed claim is the basis of scientific debate. Becoming aggressive and disrespectful after such a mundane request is much more revealing of who is debating in good faith here.

    https://www.brookes.ac.uk/about-brookes/news/2022/08/researchers-agree-the-world-can-reach-a-100-renewa

    Relevant critic here

    TLDR : The study does not support the claim made in the title. It just says that it will be economically feasible. When asked about if its physically possible, they just throw some vague techno-solutionism, and even admit that 100% renewable will may never be actually possible

    https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apenergy.2020.116273

    A request must be made to access this article, I highly doubt that you made one and actually read that report, so I won’t waste my time either.

    https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2

    This report does not even relate to our debate at all, it theorizes multiple scenarios for 2050, does not tell if it’s feasible and how, and none of these scenarios are 100% renewables anyway. This is out of subject.

    I’m not going to bother to keep going, it becomes obvious that you just took random studies whose title seemed to support vaguely your points , hoping that I’m as bad-faith as you and I that I won’t open them.

    Your statements are based on void and you become aggressive when asked for explanations. I take back what I have above: don’t bother to answer at all, I’m just going to ignore you from now on.