placeholder

I guess you haven't spent much, if any, time with pregnant women if you think it's just about having a big belly.

"You" can be used as a substitute for one if no one specific person is being replied to. But you were engaged in a 2 way colloquy with BruceH. So, its use is inadvisable.

You know, you've really got to do better with your ploys than this pathetic attempt.. Whether or not it's a good morning is an entirely subjective opinion.

Really? Because the burden of pregnancy's is equally shared. And another glaring fault in your argument is that what to do in the case of a deadlock? You do understand that given that 2 people are involved, a deadlock is a distinct possibility.

Of course, you're lying. You claimed I didn't give you an answer. Actually I gave you an explicit answer and linked it to an authoritative source. I think nuclear plants should be allowed to die. a natural death. Of course, even after they die, no one has yet succeeded in dismantling a plant to dispose of the waste. And the cost overrruns in their construction continue to be huge. Why would anyone want to pay so much for electricity?

Stop lying. I answered your question. As for my remarks about your appetite for fiction, given that you prefer to make things up, I think that's a fair assessment.

And the evidence shows it's a very faulty opinion. Which, of course, you are entitled to. But not entitled to expecting no refutation.

All I do is post links to research created by people who have done serious research on the issue. All you do is offer your own unbacked opinions. It's clear you have a strong appetite for fiction. Maybe this isn't the best forum in which to indulge that.

Just being able to sell gold for rubles isn't enough. It's not really a gold standard unless you can also buy gold with rubles.

"at least that is what I see on YouTube." Is that all you've got? And you think the state should decide whether parents can take kids to those events?

Oh, is that your game? Renewables of course. The cost of storage has collapsed so markedly that there's really nothing currently standing in the way of going to 95% renewables. And with further advances in storage to be expected, 100% will certainly be feasible. Here's a link to a piece of research on the issue. And keep in mind that this was done in 2019 and storage prices have since further plummeted. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9

Can you please share with us a link to somewhere that shows nuclear generated power is the cheapest? It's actually the most expensive. Here's a graph from Lazard comparing the levelized costs of various forms of power: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ If you want to read the fine print, you can download the entire report via the link

What makes the thinking behind this question particularly bizarre is that you seem to think that using it up more quickly is better than conserving it by replacing much of its use with renewables.

When someone tries to make it personal, that's a pretty sure indicator that they've got nothing.

So you base your arguments on headlines?

Educate yourself: The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ And stop posting question based on faulty assumptions.

Really. Is that how economic benefits and harms are determined? Not by income but by volume? Really? And what don't you understand about the fact that russia is being squeezed from 2 sides. The costliness of extracting its oil and the lower price it gets paid.

The year is 2023 and you are seriously asking that question? And why do you think my answer would depend on oil, gas, and coal being depleted. If that were the case, it would be way way too late.

It's not nearly that simple. First off, does Russia have the capacity to ship enough oil to make up for the difference? Can their petroleum industry infrastructure stand the strain of increasing enough capacity? Is there a limit to how much capacity its OPEC fellow members will allow Russia to ship before lowering their own prices?

Which is not the same thing as saying that "Sanctions never work."

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity. And energy prices are not the same thing as electricity prices.

6 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear power. I don't know what percentage of total Germany GDP belong to the power industry. But it's certainly well under 1 percent. And that doesn't take into account that other, cheaper sources are replacing it and that efficient efforts are now under way.

Given that Russian oil is camparatively expensive to produce, not really.

This may come as a shock to you, but you can't exchange rubles for gold. So no, Russia's currency is not backed by gold. Stop making things up. The dollar, the yuan, and the euro, among others are backed by strong economies. Not by the magical golden metal.

What don't you understand about the fact that Russia has to sell its oil at a steep discount because of the imposed price caps? Is that your idea of ineffective? I don't think that OPEC and its allies need any lessons in how to manipulate oil prices.