olofscience
-
Content
2,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
You're blaming mainstream media, brent's blaming the models and people who make them. You do realise they're two separate things, right? Even if the mainstream media hypes it up, it has nothing to do with the scientists who actually do the research.
-
Someone seems upset...must be early morning there
-
They also have huge gaps in logic, and the statements being kindergarten-level language actually shows there's not much intelligence there to back them up. He'll have to drop back to "sources" for any defence of his points, but we all know he only reads the titles (and gets it wrong even then). Like how I rebutted his point about EU fracking, even just reading his "sources" is usually enough to rebut him, but that's already a level of effort more than he's put into his trolling.
-
Funny when you don't even read past the titles of your "sources"...
-
Nice try exactly as predicted! Talking to yourself again? You should get help for that...
-
while brent is busy patting himself on the back and claiming victory because no one is "convincing" him on that other thread, crickets on this one. Cat got his tongue, maybe?
-
Oh, I've only been around for a fraction of that and I've already sunk several of your points. "Up to the task" = "convincing brent" then it's goalpost moving galore, no thanks. Interestingly enough, with the time you've spent trolling about this someone could have studied and completed several doctorates. Yet here you are still unable to do basic maths... As Joe said, go find a hobby. Almost anything would be remotely more useful than trolling. You might even learn something, god forbid!
-
It's what he does - bait with some cherry-picked links, then challenge people to refute it, even if he hasn't done any work since it's someone else's points in the first place. If someone actually does the work to refute it, he'll just drop it and move on to the next topic. That's all he's got to contribute. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.
-
FIFY.
-
So... you're admitting there's a gap?
-
Ok, let's do the math then. source: (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51258) In the "best case" scenario, domestic production can meet 40% of EU's needs, according to brent's own link. From this chart, that means about 18 billion cubic feet per day. But since current production is already around 8 billion cubic feet per day, they can potentially add 10 billion cubic feet per day if they drill and frack as much as they can. Imports from Russia: 13 billion cubic feet per day. 13 billion > 10 billion. If Russian imports go to zero and they've drilled as much as they can, they're still 3 billion cubic feet per day short. You see, you've made the simple mistake of assuming that Europe has ZERO domestic production right now. But given that simple maths is beyond your abilities I'm not surprised.
-
And you clearly didn't To be fair, the way they said it was not the clearest ("The best case scenario for shale gas development in Europe is one in which declining conventional production can be replaced and import dependence maintained at a level of around 60%") but it shouldn't be a problem if you're fluent in English. Let me guess - complex sentences and whiskey don't mix?
-
It was your linked article that refuted you
-
Since you didn't answer any of my points, I'll accept that as an admission that you were wrong. Thanks!
-
What makes it a lie is your assertion that EU fracking could more than make up for the Russian imports. But it still doesn't change the equation that 60% of its gas needs to be imported. You're just trying to distract now from your massive mistake - sure other countries can send gas to Europe, and especially now they should. But there aren't enough LNG terminals to handle the entire supply, and OPEC (Qatar in particular) is already selling their gas to other countries and can't just increase capacity instantly. But that wasn't what you said. What you said, and I quote: They don't. US/Canada/OPEC could step in, but that's not "having more than enough" locally.
-
Luckily, those objectives aren't mutually exclusive. A massive increase in renewables as fast as possible will also help beat the bastards. Heck, even building more nuclear would help. It won't happen overnight, but brent's fantasy that drilling will save the day is contradicted by his very own linked article. And that's the reality check.
-
Agreed there, but brent directly stated they had more than enough to replace Russian gas. Which was a complete lie. And of course he hasn't done the maths...
-
For the millionth time you don't read your own links do you? From your own goddamn link: Translated to brentian level english: EVEN IF they drilled and fracked, they will still need to import 60% of their gas needs. (if you still don't get it, 60% is more than half). Putin would still have them by the balls if he supplied 60% of Europe's gas needs.
-
Has it actually occurred to you that Europe doesn't have vast fields of natural gas?
-
I think that correlation has been broken since 2016. Try again
-
Speak for yourself FIFY.
-
You won't have much luck there, brent prefers being told what to think. (as long as those doing the telling aren't snowflake libs - if they're not, he'll gladly lap it up)
-
Not from me. Batteries are quite profitable to recycle - wrecked Teslas can sell for almost as much as a new car because the batteries are in such demand. With good battery management they're also good for millions of miles, especially the lithium iron phosphate ones. That's far longer than a car lifetime - so I expect that old batteries will be repurposed as home batteries for solar storage or something.
-
If all of your knowledge fits in under 100 words...you know that's not a thing to be proud about, right?
-
Nice try. You didn't write those 41 points, why should I spend the time rebutting them? I'll contribute on my terms, thank you. Now the question is, have you actually contributed anything to the discussion? You don't really have thoughts of your own and need to rely on articles other people write for you.
