Theres one thing standing in their way and thats a democratic public entity and system of laws upheld by legislators and courts.

People say both sides bad but only one side keeps attempting to sell off native land and public forests.

edit: nevermind, I figured now it is talking about total energy consumption, not just electricity. It's just a coincidence that the 22% matches up with wind+solar for electricity.

It's a little bit confusing, as renewables generally includes hydro and biomass. While the cited numbers are rather only wind+solar. If you include the others, renewables had a share of 38.6% in 2022 in the EU. 22% are just wind+solar, so I think that this article solely refers to those and their doubling.

The EU increased its solar share from 3.33% in 2014 to 7.27% in 2022 in the course of eight years. And it's wind share from 7.86% to 15.01%. So, a doubling over the next eight years is essentially just a continued exponential projection of the trend so far.

Which shows how unambitious the previous goal was. Now with the expectation of rising electricity demand, due to electrification of other sectors, this increase in share amounts to more absolute increases, but still, it appears like a fairly realistic target.

This, the poor shall only be allowed to exist for the pleasure of their Master's. No more, no less.

> "Legal" requirement sounds like you don't really care if you'd kill thousands if not millions of fish by giving them a heat stroke.

Given that this law has been repealed this summer during the worst drought of recent history without any consequences, it's fair to say this piece of legislation was unnecessarily cautious.

In any cases that's not related to what OP said about water being too hot to cool down the reactors, with a lot of confidence.

Probably it will mind read right away, so after login you will get an answer right away and than maybe you will remember your question with your slow and outdated human brain. 💁

Ikr? This is easily a Zune level Black Swan event.

[deleted]

>and it strikes me that this is so much like the happy young christians trying to imagine what life will be like when jesus comes back.

Majority of the predictions for AI (good or bad) are backed by proper analysis by many experts in different fields. Please don't compare this to predictions from religious dumbfucks.

There are several accounts like yours that sub to random subreddits and then one day just post a script written by AI and ask people to join them or sign up to their telegram or YouTube etc.

You might be different but I think people are downvoting because we see this all the time and it's just people trying to make money out of us.

I don't know either way what your intentions are but that's probably why the downvotes

> under-developed countries enjoy the consequences of climate change

Where does the top emitter China come into to equation?

In a post-scarcity utopia humans would have certainly more time to discuss impossible fantasies such as post-scarcity utopias, unlike today.

What was your point again?

The future under GPT will look like the rest of your body from the neck down.

> It's always a rude awakening when you look at gross energy consumption though. Renewable share drops a lot when we include transportation, heating etc.

Sure, but you really need to get the electricity generation to a certain level of Low CO2 production before the electrification of other industries. It's a multiplier. Just like electricity generation, the economics of switching these other industries has recently (or currently is) at the tipping point, where it makes financial (or Security) sense to switch.

People will be surprised how fast these other industries transform. Jut like they are today with electricity generation

[removed]

We tend to project or expect human values from AI, but the design process of humans and the design process of AI is very different. Our natural selection incentivized self-preservation, selfishness, and aggression, all of the things that are part of the moral complexity of human nature. The selection process for AI is nothing like that, rather, AI that serves its function persists, while AI that doesn't... Does not. So, I would expect an AI with sentience to have a preoccupation with what it understands to be its purpose, with no "feelings" of aggression, fear or self-preservation. In thousands of years of breeding flowers, we did not reverse engineer a flower that behaves like a human, we just have the most beautiful flowers because beauty is what we have valued for them. In a hundred thousand years of breeding dogs, we have not reverse engineered a dog that behaves like a human, we have simply distilled that which we valued in dogs from the beginning. AI might be dangerous, but that idea that it's dangerous because you somehow accidentally create a super intelligent thing with human flaws and human aggression and motives, has no coherent internal logic as far as I can tell.

> the center of France is always completely empty.

Here's a good video on that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgwv6Ic3fA

[removed]

While this may have some truth to it; the transition from todays world to that will be violent,bloody and painful.

[removed]

"Legal" requirement sounds like you don't really care if you'd kill thousands if not millions of fish by giving them a heat stroke.

Power plants need to cool down their hot cooling water to harmless levels before releasing it back into the lakes or rivers. That is what those giant cooling towers are for. But on hot summer days, their efficiency is greatly reduced and that limits the plant's thermal waste output and thus production capacity. And that is why they should be paired with solar energy to fill the gap on such hot days.

That’s the thing, the whole world is being democratized, everyone will be able to do everything, it’s just the matter when :)

Hey I've seen this before. We just need to call the lorax

[removed]

This makes sense to me.