ncmncm

At the time, all of what we think of as the sea between Borneo, Sumatra, and Java, and on up to Thailand and Taiwan, and the whole South China and Yellow Seas up to Korea was all dry land, like a million square miles of it.

Borneo was high ground. Most of what was going on with humanity at the time, according to cave painting evidence, was there and is now almost all under water.

There is a hill on Java built over 20,000 years ago. Excavation was halted, by the Indonesian government, for reasons not expressed.

I see you and raise you one Flynn.

Sorry, how does ripgrep save you tens of hours? I get that it is faster than regular grep, but that doesn't really answer the question; I don't find myself stalled waiting for grep. The only reasonable explanation would be something ripgrep does that grep actually doesn't. I could try to guess, but have no confidence I would guess right.

Right: the fossil fuel lobby has discovered that nuke-mongering is in their interest. The nukes don't need to ever be completed, but as long as they haven't been, their market is secure.

They know the writing is on the wall, but profits can be good right up to the end.

If global civilization collapses, the majority will starve. Some won't.

The argument against nukes is that they are super-expensive compared to modern alternatives. The politicians who make nukes even more expensive are smart enough to get rich doing it.

You imagine there is no plan because you do not know about the plans.

It would be stupid to build storage there is not renewable generating capacity to charge. When there is such capacity, they will then build out storage. In the meantime the correct place to spend is on generation. Which, in fact, is what they are doing.

It has already been explained to you numerous times that the above is false. Who do you imagine you will fool this time?

Do you even read what you write? You make no sense.

Wind and solar both. Which of those is cheaper varies with circumstance.

Hydrolysis has had high losses until recently, but efficiency is now well over 90%.

The remaining problem is building factories for electrolysis equipment. Building factories takes an appallingly long time. But the problem is only of time, not technical maturity.

False. There is no shortage of any of the materials needed to go fully renewable.

OP could explain why they imagine fatal problems. Would, if they were not just trolling.

Fusion is not, in fact, technically feasible.

Anything not built yet has not been built. After it is built, it will then have been built.

Deserts are a stupid place to plant solar farms, so the question is moot.

Numerous politically stable European countries have plenty of room for solar installations.

It has been explained to you numerous times already.

You may repeat your lies as much as you like. I will point out that you are lying, each time.

Who do you imagine you are fooling?

There are dozens of such reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada range in California. None of them will take as much water as Lake Mead, but they don't need to.

Sweden has lots of high mountains that may have shallow reservoirs built cheaply on top of. Reservoirs with earthen dikes are radically cheaper than the sort of dams needed for traditional hydro power, and may be placed almost anywhere, because they do not need or destroy a watershed. Lots of small ones, placed close to users, are better than one big one like Lake Mead.

I frequently get flyers in the mail, from a variety of mostly co-op providers, offering to supply me power more cheaply than the grid operator does.

So in fact my cost, as a consumer, is lower than it was.

You clearly wish this were not so.

You dearly wish for storage to be expensive, just as you used to wish solar PV would be. But you were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Everything else is getting cheaper, at an exponential rate, but nukes are getting more costly.

Nobody depends on Russia for renewable energy.

Even after you take capacity factor into account.

You assert that renewables projects do not start producing power before completion? I can cite hundreds that have done. I have never heard of a single nuke plant that produced before it was completed.

Only if "ideal" means "massively expensive". Generally you want backup to not cost overmuch.

Excess power is most usefully applied capturing CO2 and desalinating water. But nukes' operating cost is too high for that. Spending a single year's operating cost on solar, and then using solar to do that work,leaves you with all subsequent years' opex available to use building out more solar.

Subsidies for renewables are very reliably seen to drive prices down faster than would have happened without, producing always a very large net gain.

Nukes have been heavily subsidized forever, but prices have only ever risen.

Storage cost is falling even faster than solar PV or wind ever did.

These accounting of subsidies almost always omit the bulk as not accounted in euros. The disaster liability subsidy, and the decommissioning subsidy are rarely so much as mentioned.

The "northern parts" of Sweden are, by report, already massively oversupplied with hydro power.

Starting nukes with the hope of power in ten or fifteen years will not help keep anybody warm in the meantime.

Transmission lines ought to be quite a lot quicker to complete.

Nobody says those things. You are making it up. Don't.