Because its production is very stable. You cannot crank it up or down on demand fast.

Not much, what about yourself?

You talk like you've never seen a 4-dimensional toaster!

Obviously the toaster itself is regular, it's the heating element configuration that delivers the power in 4 dimensions thanks to the Physical Effect of the Updog.

All renewables require a DC-AC conversion. And we would need tons of them. And they use rare metals.

Broadly conversion also means voltage transformation. If you want to run more current (because we make more electricity, because we need more electricity, because we charge cars and shift from cooking with gas to electric etc etc) then you either need more wires (and more towers, and transformers) or you need better wires and better transformers.

There is additional problem with maintaining electric frequency. Currently it is done via fossil generators, nuclear is not suitable for that purpose because of how it's generation is used. Renewables are expensive at that. In future of renewable energy it has to be done with storage. If storage is used for it then storage would not just be a 'backup battery' now, it would become a grid forming part, with added requirements.

I googled a good article about that, here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/dispatches-from-the-grid-edge/solving-the-renewable-powered-grids-inertia-problem-with-advanced-inverters

There are many real limitations, and storage is one of them, but many of people are clueless to how much the grid itself and its limitations in power delivery and (!) conversion are a problem. The only difference with storage is that overall we already know how to do it. If storage would be magically solved tomorrow you would still need to upgrade and partially rebuild the whole grid to make things work.

Then why would you advocate against boiling kettle in 5 seconds? Having faster energy delivery does not have any anti-preservational qualities in itself. For what it's worth it the other way around, from charging cars to warming houses, if our power grid could do more we would be able to replace fossils faster.

Well, duh, you obviously need to use a 4-dimensional toaster to evenly deliver toasting all over the bread thickness, then it won't carbonize.

I love when people advocate against technologies on the internet and don't even get the irony of it.

>Cogen plant doesn't use water for cooling

Do you really expect me to believe some anonymous dude in the comments, not an article from a news site?

Wrong

1. There is a LRSA wastewater treatment plant there
2. There is Linden Combined Cycle Plant that uses reclaimed (read semi-clean but still smelly) water for cooling. As you might imagine this water evaporates.
3. There is a marsh that also adds it small share

Smart contact lenses: wait WHAT?

>the rate of change is greatly effected

You don't know that. It's not verifiable with the information in the article. You just want to believe what you already believe to be The Truth, even when scientific proof is nowhere to be found.

I'm not even asking much. Just give me some freaking numbers: what's the rate, what's the base, I don't even need proofs those numbers are real. But give me something. But there aren't anything. Yet "activists" still upvote "because science". Facepalm.

And that's ok, but if we talk science specifically, it's a tool. A specific tool. And as every tool it was created for a purpose, and it was not 'knowledge for knowledge'. Technically speaking the very base of scientific method (empirical analysis and experimentation) was developed by Dominican monks to get closer to God through discovery of truth about the World, but I don't want to look like I'm preaching.

But the point still stands. We value science because of its results. Not because we like knowledge for knowledge. The latter existed since the beginning of time. Science did not exist since the beginning of time. It's an invention. A tool. For a purpose of getting 'truth' i.e. concrete, verifiable results.

Politicians are actually smarter than an average redditor, and realize that solid politics should be based on science, because that is what science is for. Science is a proven framework to figure out solid knowledge about something that allows to make conclusions and decisions.

Political article that is not backed by science in favor of climate change is no better than political article that is not backed by science against climate change. For the sake of making solid decisions they are the same.

And I'm leaving alone the fact that even if the claim is right, even if what article claims is correct, then the article did not explain in the slightest how exactly the money are going to help.

A hollow piece of political propaganda, that can only be cheered by mindless activists who only care about amplifying their message with any means, no matter how questionable they are.

https://www.nj.com/mercer/2021/08/rare-venomous-snake-bite-on-nj-hike-put-college-student-in-icu-hes-now-recovering-at-home.html

But hey 'thErE hAs beEn no fAtalitIes', so go ahead and risk going to hospital, ruining your week, month, maybe health, and for sure bank account, because some anonymous on reddit play chicken with you.

>knowledge for the sake of knowledge

First of all 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is not science. Science if a specific set of specifically organized knowledge. I was discussing science, not knowledge in general.

Second, what you call 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is curiosity, and it is an evolutionary trait. Evolutionary is a crucial word here. It means that it has appeared and spread in the population, meaning it was practically useful for survival. The survival benefit of the trait stems from the practicality of knowing the threats as opposed to not knowing the threats. So even 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is a practical tool.

But majority of science is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but rather an investigation for practical reasons: grow food, cure disease, build house, etc.

"Those who are not with us are against us" is a single telltale of a totalitarian sect.

>You're neglecting the fact that science is highly statistical.

Thanks Captain Obvious, you neglectinc the fact there is no statistics in the article, "very close" is not statistics. Of course you gonna say there are some statistics somewhere, and well, duh of course, but they are not here. Not in this article. the article is useless. It's not science at all.

Wow... the article is even less scientifically useful than I initially thought.

Whole purpose of science is to give answers to practical questions through observation and experiment, so that people could decide what to do. Science is a practical tool.

If science is not able to give an answer to a practical question for whatever reason, it means we will not be able to use it to decide what to do about it. We might still act on it, but it will not be a science-based act, with all the consequences of that.

They will do it themselves naturally. China is very dependent on the imports of fuels. They are throwing more resources than anyone at green energy production. The intentions are of course energy security, but it will help with pollution as well, so overall win-win.

"What harm can come of this little brown spider, that is so afraid of you that likes to be recluse?" /s

People are fully right in being overcautious with snakes. Wrong identification of a snake can kill a person much more likely than wrong identification of a spider.

>"We know today that these peatlands are very close to that tipping point [...] We don’t know exactly how close"

That's not a very useful science. It gives no perspective to the reader who wishes to be informed. "Very close" is not informative at all.

We haven't found anything, which suggests that dark matter must interact very weakly with ordinary matter might not even be a real thing.