Because no one actually knows. Studies or trends are done by crusaders for or against a certain food because they noticed for themselves it has some neg impact.

There are not enough actual studies on food or even healthcare. There was like 1 decent study for example on keto diet for athletes. Results weren’t valid for most people as they only looked at athletic results and how the athletes felt. Not the health impact for gen pop.

Healthcare is the same. I’ve lived my entire life following various medical advice due to medical issue. Recently that advice has changed. And I’m fkin pissed cuz after 40 fkin years I am finally pain free.

And I haven’t even touched the topic of both food and healthcare for women, poc, differing body-/lifestyle types.

Only thing I can agree on: consume less sugar and sauces. Sure my opinion is anecdotal, but everyone I know that has cut those 2 has seen great results.

Rofl.

Yeah no. Your choice has global impact. Sadly enough.

An EV will double your electricity usage. Look into the requirements for EV cargo transport. Swapping out all the diesel trucks, just the heavy transport will come close to doubling the national electricity needs. Add to that small vans and buses.

I urge you to actually do the math. You’ll get a much much better understanding of the issue. Just pasting links to articles that look like they support your arguments adds to the dream.

The aim is to drop fossil fuels. Your goal should’ve been to embrace nuclear while increasing renewables. Atm you seem fine with just burning fossil fuels, killing the planet, cuz the alternative isn’t renewable. GG.

Take a look at Germany, Belgium, etc. ditching nuclear because the green parties fought so hard for it. What are they doing now? Back to healthy healthy coal and gas. Thanks for helping kill the planet even faster in your zeal for exclusively renewable energy.

Why? The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped. Majority of mericans are dumb af. Splitting off from the D would give the R a sure win. That’s the only reason they aren’t doing it.

Idealists and reality. Natural opposites.

Renewables are unreliable. That’s a fact. Yes you have moments, days even weeks where they can deliver what is currently required. In total output. Not yet in delivers when you actually need it output.

Sure you can have 100% renewable generation for a 24hr period, but if your generation is during the day and your usage is spread into the night, you’re not really covering your needs, no matter how good it looks on paper.

It is also your current usage. Now do the math and replace all fossil fuel usage with electric alternatives. Cars, buses, trucks, heating, cooking, etc. Now calculate just how much more renewables you need to cover all that in ideal circumstances.

Now do the same for windless winter days.

If we’re going to step away from fossil fuels entirely, you’re going to have to accept nuclear as an option. Thinking we’ll manage only with renewables is a dream. While you dream, we’re burning fossil fuels non-stop. Cuz that’s reality.

You can have renewables with nuclear, or renewables with fossil fuels. You’re actively choosing renewables with fossil fuels.

Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.

Solar plants, windmills or nuclear plant? You gotta be more specific.

As I said, lets talk once you’ve managed a full winter. 😉

In the summer. In ideal conditions. Lets talk again once you’ve tried 12 continuous months in the heavily populated northern hemisphere. 😉

So THE worst case scenario for nuclear only puts it at 6× the cost of renewables? That’s not really the argument you think it is…

Are you that far removed from reality? Drop the “european” and it’ll still be true. So what exactly is your point?

Well no. Your premise was anecdotal experience. Your articles are not relevant. Funny how you’re annoyed at someone else’s ad hominem, yet yours is totally valid? Ze victim complex runz deep.

Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?

Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.

It’s not an XOR problem.

Good luck in the winter. 😉

Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That’s new.

Eastern Europe doesn’t represent Europe as a whole. Never has, never will.

No. The victim pit you’re in is the perpetual victim role you’ve taken on as a personality.

Oh for the love of fuck would you get out of your bottomless victim pit?

That’s why I’m living now, not waiting for retirement. I got a good 15 years left, maybe 20 if I push it. Then I’m tapping out. Not a fan of keeping on living just for the sake of breathing.

Well there was another “survivalist” that tried the same. He died.