thats lots, and lots, of steroids for you.
Strongly disagree with what Carney said, but not sure he could say anything other.
Yea, definitely more than I like to see, but guess that's why it's a deluxe edition
oh, i was gonna buy it, got the first two on steam.
amen, Loved Doom/doom eternal, but completly skipping the dark age due to that.
Looks delicious!
Yea, not raiseing your property tax for a decade is just asking for trouble later
Oh, I can agree with that
Was worried you were gonna say hydrogen!
Phased out in favor of....
I assume 'formulated in canada' is the petro-chem equivalent of 'designed in canada'
Partially, for sure, but continued decarbonization (heat pumps, electric cars, steel and concrete production) will also increase the need for power.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but it's pretty clear my facts can't compete with your feelings. You haven't provided an argument; you've provided drive-by link dropping without actually quoting or understanding the data.
Since you dropped the Lazard LCOE+ report, you should probably read its explicit caveats: Lazard openly states that standard Levelized Cost of Energy does not include grid integration, transmission, or the exponential system costs of full-scale energy storage. When you look at their actual "Firming" metrics (adding storage to intermittent renewables), the cost advantage begins to shrink significantly.

I've consistently argued about the system engineering reality: the bottleneck to mine the massive amounts of copper, aluminum, and materials required to scale that storage to 100% makes the transition to renewables, without a nuclear backbone, a slower prospect, and often more expensive.
If you decide to push a all-renewable future, please don't try to stand in the way of those of us who want a diversified, realistic mix to curtail CO2 emissions in the short term. I have consistently agreed that the continued transition to renewables is needed, something you seem to ignore, but that persuing 100% renewable isn't feasible in the short term.

