I can’t find any indication that they’re changing their target…it’s just going from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-fuel free”.
I can’t find any indication that they’re changing their target…it’s just going from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-fuel free”.
iirc earlier solar panel construction required rare earths
In the last 10-15 years they’ve moved to more abundant materials
Sweden?
Drought?
Anyway I’m not a civil engineer or geologist or renewable energy engineer or anything, so I won’t pretend to know what the best path is. I’m just hoping they did their studies correctly and are picking the best option.
But even if they’re not, it’s good they’re moving away from fossil fuels, whichever direction they move in.
Most of those costs are similar for renewables…rather than a building it’s the production and installation of fields of solar panels, for example.
In both cases I’m pretty sure it’s a negligible fraction of the lifecycle emissions compared to energy generated.
Honestly I don’t care if it’s solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, or nuclear, as long as it displaces fossil fuels. And it’s feasible on a very near time scale.
If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.
We need an “all of the above” approach. This fight between nuclear and renewables is just stirred up by fossil fuel interests. Either is good. Both is good.
“Renewable” typically means renewable on human time scales, so fossil fuels don’t count.
Biofuel would be renewable.
If you consider fusion to be “nuclear”, that’s renewable. But yeah, not fission.
It is zero emission though.
Didn’t the Dutch royal family recently apologize for the horrible shit they did in Africa?
He didn’t get off on a technicality, a jury found him not guilty.
The important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to everyone. Good job.
“Fascism” = literally anything I disagree with rofl
You’re like the Fox News idiots blathering on about how everything is socialism
It’s halfway here already lol
Science > neandethals like you
Need something to force me. So, same as most people.
Next question?
I wish that they do anything at all to force it.
The IPCC are a bunch of ineffective wishful thinking idiots.
Cut subsidies to meat. Tax carbon. That’s the only way you can get meaningful demand-side action: through a response to supply-side actions.
Terminally online moment lol
SO OFFENDED over absolutely nothing
In both of these cases, and in fact regarding a lot of things, climate activists are going at this TOTALLY FUCKING BACKWARDS.
OF COURSE we’re boned, we asked people to actively make their own lives worse. We should have known that was never going to happen.
Whats the actual, practical solution? Science, same as it always has been. Lab grown meat. Electric vehicles & better urban transit. Renewable energy.
The solution is not to make people’s lives worse but to design ways that will reduce emissions without requiring any actual sacrifice from everyday people (except higher prices). Because everyday people will not sacrifice. It will never happen.
Dedicating time researching a magic pill isn’t actually solving the problem today
Dedicating time researching magic pills solves all kinds of problems. Saved several billion lives just a couple of years ago, did you forget?
It’s a negligible amount of heat. Something like 0.000001% of the greenhouse effect from fossil fuels. Almost unmeasurable.