C’est une analyse primitive. Mais jusqu’à ce qu’on me dégote un contre exemple, c’est aussi la mienne.

10e: Thierry PEREZ (RN) en tête, Joëlle RICHOL LFI-NFP en deuxième, Marjolaine MEYNIER-MILLEFERT (ENS) a déclaré se retirer. C’est pas gagné: RN à 42%, LR à 8, NFP à 25, va falloit convaincre au centre.

Bon bah il m’a remotivé! Du coup j’ai fait ce qu’il préconise dans son dernier message :

Mais si ceux qui font ce pari se trompent, alors dites vous qu’on est dans les 4 derniers jours avant Pétain et vous pouvez encore agir. Après, il sera trop tard.

Donc vous posez votre semaine, vous allez sur https://t.co/QrXkC8MQMC et vous suivez le tuto.

Je me suis mis dans la boucle locale, je vais tracter demain.

Ah punaise merci ! J’ai l’impression que personne ne calcule le report de voix!

Pour moi l’essentiel est de prouver aux votants que les mesures de gauche c’est bien plus facile qu’on ne le fait croire. Même 2 mesures de droite pour une mesure de gauche ça permet d’avancer. Quand je vois aux US à quel point ça porte les démos depuis 10 ans d’avoir mis en place une sécu, arrachée avec les dents avec plein de compromis, je pense que le jeu en vaut la chandelle

À saluer, mais ce serait plus notable si c’était une triangulaire qu’elle avait eu une chance de gagner autrement. C’est là où l’écart est faible qu’on va vraiment tester LREM.

En fait, ça s’appelle de l’accélérationnisme, c’est assez rare et extrémiste. C’est extrémiste parce que tu te dis en somme “des gens vont mourir, mais c’est pour arriver au progrès plus vite une fois qu’on aura touché le fond”. On en trouve à gauche, généralement chez des gens tankies par ailleurs (autoritaristes).

Et en fait, c’est pas juste dangereux, c’est aussi complètement idiot. L’histoire elle dit que quand les fachos arrivent, ils s’installent et que leur “disqualification” ne vient que par une défaite militaire ou la mort de vieillesse.

Oui, normalement l’opinion que la population a d’eux devrait baisser, parce que oui, ils sont toujours nuls (il se trouve que vivre dans une réalité alternative, ça n’aide pas à gérer un pays). Mais la population, assez rapidement, n’a plus son mot à dire.

The deers of Nara show that giving them food and protecting them is an easy way to achieve that.

I had never seen deers as aggressive as monkeys towards humans!

Does it mean that production reached the level where intermittence becomes problematic?

I know. But we know it is “just” an engineering problem which can be solved at a high cost.

Fusion is a field where you can’t have the “statup mindset”: investments are in hundreds of millions and take at best a decade (and most likely two) to pay off. That’s one field where it can’t go anywhere without public funding.

It is very possible that China gets there first, considering how ridiculous western fusion efforts have been.

Let me guess: open source?

That’s according to a peer-reviewed study funded by the Ford Motor Company, a company that makes most of its profits from gas-powered vehicles.

If you want to see if a tech is part of a renewable future, it is direct emissions that should be counted. EVs are at zero. They don’t emit CO2 when running, when being produced or when being disposed of. They use electricity and transport, two things that we can provide without emitting CO2. They are a piece of the puzzle of a sustainable society, something thermal cars will never be, and something these graphs hide.

Of course we will be better off without cars and trucks, but the road towards them being totally gone is long, and it is time we don’t have.

Your assumptions are far more numerous and offensive than that. From you thinking that I know nothing about discrimination at work or my driving habits, or even assuming that you are more to the left than I am or that I criticize your positions for being leftist rather than being wrong.

The cherry on the top of you laying down a dozen of wrong accusation is you calling my attitude patronizing and belittling.

it unusual for someone to get things this wrong this consistently.

At least we agree on something.

And once again your assumptions about my situation and my work ethics are hilariously wrong. I am cutting down my income in order to work non-profit on issues I do care about and turn down offers by unethical companies routinely. I am a freelance who changes client pretty often. My income does not depend on the acceptance of an ideology, I made sure of that and that was a reason for becoming independent.

I am sure I am not the first person you are antagonizing through your own projections. You should really be more careful about assuming things about the people who contradict you. Sometimes they just do it because you are wrong. Being more open to that possibility would make your life much better.

First time I have someone complaining about me giving sources.

You are mostly arguing on things we agree (there needs to be policy efforts, there needs to be some change, the current transition is too slow) and we mostly disagree on what is a data-backed observation: renewables augment while fossils go down. Within fossils, gas displaces coal but fossils in general go down. If you refuse graphs and numbers about good sources about it, I am at a loss.

So much for not doing personal attacks. Ok, usually when I discuss with someone who does not have the basic graph reading skills I patiently explain their mistakes, but in my experience people who are unable to read data but think they are smart enough to teach it are incurable. Will you be the exception?

a) The total amount of fossil fuel used in energy generation is decreasing

Yes, coal+natural gas has decreased. The fall in coal is bigger than the rise in natural gas. You can check it in the source the article linked.

b) Coal power plants are being shut down and replaced by wind farms

By renewables (which include hydro and solar panels), yes. They are also replaced by natural gas power plant. “Coal plants being replaced by renewables and gas” implies that some coal plants are replaced by renewables.

c) The percentage of the energy generation from Coal has decreased since 2000, and the percentage of energy from renewables has increased, but not as quickly as the energy from natural gas.

Correct again. So do you understand that some of the decrease in coal was from renewables replacing them or have you an alternate explanation?

The graph is scaled based on the total energy generation in the year 2020.

No. It is clearly labelled in billion kWh. However, the total production in the US has more or less plateaued in the last 20 years so that does not make a big difference on the right hand of the graph.

Here is the second graph from the source you claimed said that renewables are replacing coal. What information is supported by this graph?

I am sure you notice but just to be sure, you saw that this is just over 3 years, right? Including the very unusual covid years.

a) Coal is being phased out for renewable alternatives

It is more visible on the wider graph but indeed you can see the coal slightly decreasing and the renewables slightly increasing. The coal dip in 2020 tells you that when there is a decrease in demand, coal and gas plants are shut down before renewable sources.

b) There has been a major shakeup in how the United States gets its energy during the last five years

This is a 3 years graph of a very unusual time. Please tell me you realized that.

c) Where the United States generates its energy changes over the timescale of months, but from 2019 to 2022 has remained roughly static.

On a month to month basis, coal is sometime the #2 source of energy and sometime #4. That’s something that never happened before 2010. And it will happen less and less often as the big trend shows, coal is going to remain #4 more and more often.

This is text taken from the source you claimed said that renewables are replacing coal. What can be inferred from this text?

Please tell me you know what “short term” is. Please tell me you are not trying to infer trends from fast noise. Please tell me you are not taking the covid years as the basis for an extrapolation.

Of course it is possible, at least in the simplified model I gave of identical costs. It is also possible that they replace them [like has happened in the US for the past 20 years.

In practice though, renewables only get there because it is actually more cost effective in some areas (areas with more sunlight, more wind=better economic efficiency of renewables). In the case where a tech is cheaper than the other, in a market economy, they are mutually exclusive yes, so the most efficient one is displacing the other.

I usually refrain from answering to personal attacks, I am not here to win internet points or leftist certificates from random people. I prefer to focus the discussion on facts, but between a dozen (hilariously wrong) assumptions about my life and strawman arguments, you don’t leave me with a lot of material.

So let’s talk about the Jevons effect. Not sure why you mention a post you made 10 days ago, if you are interested I made almost the same argument I did in the previous post 5 months ago and had to discuss it in professional settings more than 10 years ago. That’s not a concept I discovered yesterday.

In particular, the Jevon’s paradox is not about the number of lightbulbs consumed, but efficiency and energy use.

Lightbulbs to LED transition is a textbook effect of a small Jevons effect. It totally applies. You can apply this to lighting, where the effect is smaller than the energy gains. You can apply it to the wider system of energy production where yes, indeed, lower energy costs increase total energy demand.

To escape Jevon’s Paradox under capitalism long enough to solve the crisis, you would need everything to suddenly become so efficient that even exponential economic growth would not be fast enough to make up the difference between the transition and the point we reach decarbonization.

You keep using “efficiency” in different meanings there. Jevons paradox is fed by the economic efficiency (USD/kWh) of energy production. We are interested in its carbon efficiency (CO2/kWh). Replacing a coal power plant by a wind farm of the same capacity and same economic efficiency (aka cost) has no reason to cause a rebound yet would cause a huge change in terms of carbon efficiency.

People have drastically adjusted their society to meet existential threats before.

Yes, and I am sure that they could again. I remind you that I am the one arguing that solving the climate crisis is easy and just a matter of will and I therefore consider that this is now out of my department.

You are the one insisting on a “holistic” approach, which, I am arguing would involve not only taking into account a realistic model of the population to understand why, politically, these easy solutions are not implemented or are implemented too slowly. It means not only to consider the mindset of ecologically minded people (which, obviously, I do consider to exist and to be human, I have a hard time you take that strawman you built seriously) but also the mindset of the majority that blocks these solutions. I don’t like it and you probably don’t like it, but an “holistic” approach would be techno-solutionist: it is harder to make most people change their habits than to make carbon-neutral alternatives to the products they use, so favor that approach if you want a quick transition.

If you would favor a “morally superior” way to lower CO2 emission over a fast and effective pragmatic but “impure” one, it means climate is not your top priority, that you put some ideals over it (which can be fine! Just don’t pretend defending climate when you are defending your preferences)

Let’s start with the end:

decreasing energy use and limiting that use to renewable resources is a deeply social and political problem, and has no technological solution.

That’s like being blind to the air you are breathing. It is indeed not a technological problem anymore like it was in the 1980 because the technological problems have been solved. And technology has also helped solving the economic problem as well by lowering the cost of these techs. Indeed, there is little more that tech can solve there.

Now the paradox you mention in your first part is called the Jevons paradox, or the rebound effect, and is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood piece of economics in these discussions. It states that if you make a process more efficient, you may increase the total cost of it. Here is what is often misunderstood:

1. It is not systematic. You can make processes more efficient without increasing the demand for it.
2. The rebound may be lower than the overall gain. Lighting for instance, when switching from incandescent to LED light, has seen an small increase in usage but still a huge decrease in total energy use. Turns out that 10x more efficient lighting, does not make people want 10x more lights.
3. It is about economic efficiency. A typical market economy does not care about CO2 efficiency. This is usually a problem but in this case, there is no reason that a more carbon-efficient electricity experiences a rebound when priced similarly to a fossil-based electricity.

Bringing more nuclear power plants online, building more solar energy arrays, and covering windy lands and coastlines with turbines will not ‘solve’ global warming, it will accelerate it.

This is false. This is even a lie and you should know better than to spread it. I am tired of ungrowthists shooting down climate solutions and pretending to fight climate change denialists while themselves ignoring the parts of the IPCC reports that they dislike. Renewables and EVs are a crucial part of the transition, and nuclear plays a role, though a smaller one. The easiest way to shut down fossil fuel power plant, by far, when you holistically take into account the economics, the politics, the sociology, the psychology, etc. is to have the ability to switch as painlessly as possible to a renewable mode of production that changes as little habits as possible.

Am I thinking this is the best theoretical way or the most moral one or the most enlightened one? No. But you talk about a holistic approach, this is what it is: the shortest path is the path of lower effort. Waiting for MAGA hats or impoverished people to adopt the enlightened ways of economic growth rejection is as realistic as betting on nuclear fusion to solve all energy problems once and for all. Want a quick transition? Let’s them keep their oversized SUVs and meat-heavy diet while making them CO2 neutral. Put the human in the equation, but put the real human in it, not the humans you would like to exist.

EDIT: Preferred to remove an overly aggressive answer about the CO2 capture part, but too tired at the moment to make a polite retort to the frankly offensive assumptions you make about my position.