just thinking: why stop at 2? I suppose a grid of heat towers with mirrors beneath would provide maximum utilization of the solar radiation
my understanding is that Taiwan buys weapons from the us, so he is demanding something that is already a common practice
The moemorphic character shown in the picture is Archchan, created by ravimo. I wonder why show her in a discussion about Mint?
To triple the RE capacity by 2030, we need to double the current speed, or linearly increase the deployment speed until it reach 1.5TW/yr by 2030.
Ambitious but totally feasible.
I remembered vividly when some people predicting soaring high coal electricity generation would occur in Germany for 2023 back in April. Of course, those who had been studying the actual Energiewende for a while knew that would never be the case.
Interestingly, most of Germany import in 2023 was also from renewables. One could say that German coal has been beatened by growing renewables both at home and abroad.
Realism diplomacy is just 19th century style imperialism and interempire alliance with a new name. Look how he appeased Putin during the beginning of russo-ukrainian war. This person has no moral guide and will throw anyone, friend or foe, under the bus to gain perceived nation interest. In the long run it is exactly those moves that harmed US credibility the most.
Now they will start saying that beneath every hospital and refugee camp in Gaza lies a Hamas headquarter.
I think it is the other way around; easy pirate versions appeared becuz windows was popular, providing access to those who can't afford.
I mean I understand this is modeling a pathway with no further climate policy, but still wind being second cheapest option should gain more share.
Seems too conservative projection for wind energy, but yeah most experts agree solar will be dominant.
Algae are also the preferable bioenergy source compared with using trees.
I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.
in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.