And yet all the cool kids love Python and YAML these days, both of which break in fun and interesting ways if you get the indenting wrong.

But that's by design, and is very clearly spelled out. And if you can't deal with Python's formatting rules, maybe you should go back to BASIC. The rest of us are making great stuff with it.

1.8 percent per year corresponds to (0.982^4) reduction, or 7% decrease over four years. This is a larger reduction than "2-3%".

This has been a problem with this entire thread, people comparing drop per year with drop over four years. Units matter.

Large scale production of lithium-ion batteries is a very recent thing (e.g., https://batteriesnews.com/wp-c...). There really aren't a lot of these batteries to recycle yet (despite all the hype about short lifetimes, the current tech of lithium batteries have proven to easily exceed ten year lifetimes, and are still going strong). There are some recycling companies doing business now, but as a general thing, people aren't going into the business of recycling batteries at a large scale without a lot of batteries at end of life to recycle.

The history of technology shows that new technologies start at high cost, and cost decreases with time. As Neils Bohr said*, "the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet," but I'm old enough to remember $500 calculators. I'll put my money on cost decreasing as the tech goes down the learning curve.

(* also attributed to Yogi Berra, but Bohr said it first. And, as Berra said "I never said half the things I said.")

Almost. One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer at a very rapid pace compared to geological climate change rates.

...in ten thousand thousand years or so. A few million at most.

Nope. Corals species die in extinction events. Corals as an order (Scleractinia) have survived numerous, but not all, extinction events.

It took two to five million years for corals to reappear in the geological record after the K-T extinction event. The coral that survived were, in general, deep-water genera, not the shallower reef-forming ones. And the corals after the K-T extinction event were different species.

In the long run it is, but the current warming is too fast for evolution to keep up. If species can't adapt fast enough, they just die. In the long run, other species will probably re-occupy the ecological niche, but this can sometimes take a long time. After the extinction of rugose corals at the Permian–Triassic extinction event, for example, there was a gap of tens of millions of years until unrelated species evolved to fill the ecological niche.

That did not work out well for the species living at the time. Of the animals, nothing larger than a squirrel survived. We would prefer this not to happen while we are to the species living at the time.

Yes, the last glacial maximum.

Also, we are currently in the most temperate time of the year. Wait until you can exceed the demand during winter or summer before running your victory lap... or are rolling blackouts no longer a thing in California?

1.1% in four years does not account for a 1.8% per year. To put them in the same units, 0.275% per year accounts for only 15% of the decline. So, it yes "contributes", but it only contributes 15%.

I gave a link. Go argue with them, not me.

Now you're just trolling.

When Turbotax is advertised free, why would you think people will search for something else?

The answer is, Turbotax has been doing bait and switch.

Bait and switch is one thing on something that is an optional purchase (although still illegal). What makes this specifically the government's business is that it is bait and switch on something that is required by the government.

I think that the point is that filling in a tax return is required by the government, and TurboTax is trying to graft onto that a payment that goes to them.

So, make more solar power. Right now, adding more solar helps some, but doesn't solve the electrical peak problem, since the electrical peak is now late afternoon/early evening.

But, solar power is cheap during peak solar hours. So, if you generate the energy during peak solar hours, and use it during peak usage hours, it's a big win.

But, you didn't need me to explain that. If you have even a slight familiarity with utility-scale electrical power, you already knew that.

Is Youtube required by the U.S. government for every taxpayer?

They did. The US has no carbon reduction policies that have any actual mandates to reduce carbon.

It's popular to hate on Elon Musk these days, but the origin of auto electrification is pretty much entirely due to one company: Tesla. Up until the Tesla roadster debuted, real-world electric cars were little more than fancy golf carts. The ones that tried to be more got killed (there's an amusing documentary Who Killed the Electric Car" about that history.

Backwards. If there are shortages during the day, then replacing a GENERATOR with storage will work fine. You no longer need to size generators for peaking peak power, you can size them for average power-- much less.

If there are shortages averaged over 24 hours, then replacing a generator with storage won't work.

The data was: "Between 2018 and 2022, the region's carbon emissions fell by 1.8% each year."

Over that period of time, the bay area population was nearly constant (declined by 1.1%, to be accurate). That is not enough to account for a 1.8 percent decrease in emissions per year compounded over four years.
  https://usafacts.org/data/topi...

No it isn't. Carbon dioxide absorption spectrum is measured. Once you have that, you know the radiative forcing. The rest is details. Complicated details, but details.

You're telling me you're willing to lie for pay? OK, noted.

There are "dissenting opinions" on almost anything, including Newtons laws and whether the Earth is flat.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/def...

Even eighteen years ago, when that was written, the data was already pretty much running against the thesis that the writer was asserting. Yes, "taking a different tack, some scientists seek other explanations for climate change." Unfortunately, all of the other explanations proposed so far have been falsified by measurements. A scientist who comes up with a different explanation of warming trends and simultaneously shows that the greenhouse effect is not causing warming would instantly become the most famous atmospheric scientist in the world. So far, however, all the other hypotheses have been shot down.