Blackout protection is not the main reason to do this. The main reason to do this is arbitrage. And it would take you only seconds to do the maths and realise that arbitrage requires bugger-all extra strain on the battery, a few cycles a year at most. 70 or 80kWh battery vs maybe 4 or 5kWh of draw per day in the summer and as high at 8 or 9 in the winter.

I agree with this. I've looked quite often at domestic battery setups, and they're really poor value at the moment, at least in the UK. And I've also looked at getting a bidirectional charger that can support V2H if my next car offered it... and again, they're really poor value at the moment, at least in the UK. I really would want to be able to swap out my now decade-old home charger with a new model that offers simple seamless bidirectionality and works with any car offering V2H. But at the moment, this isn't a simple packaged offer for consumers, it's a project, requiring navigating all sorts of regulations, specialists etc. I feel like it ought to be doable for a couple of grand, but last I looked, it was at least 6 or 7k. V frustrating.

The diesel exports are irrelevant. To the extent that Russia exports any diesel, it will be diesel they've imported from iran. And the amounts are tiny. The much more important strategic shifts have been the lifting of sanctions and the throttling of intelligence.

He wasn't replying to you, though, was he? Go check again.

"I don't need any studies, I know a guy" is such a quintessential answer from someone taking your position.
Also chef's kiss is that you are now comparing production at winter *solstice* with summer *solstice* whereas you previously claimed the 10x multiple for the entire six "summer" months vs the entire six "winter" months.

As if your fossil fuels haven't been subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over multiple decades, and literal fucking wars fought over it.

I've already been specific in my previous response.

What are you *talking* about? People who want action on climate change absolutely talk about power generation the whole fucking time, you moron. There are endless discussions about retiring coal from power generation. There's literally trackers for it, like this one:
https://beyondfossilfuels.org/...

You people are just so endlessly *stupid*.

As for the poor: poor people in most of the world, including in the US, are disproportionately less likely to have cars. investing in public transport both cuts carbon emissions and helps them get around. In many countries, there are means-tested scrappage and subsidy schemes to help poor people move to low carbon technologies. And most pertinently, the spread of small-scale residential solar & BESS is one of the most significant boosts to human development in Africa that there has been in decades, and has provided literally millions of families with their first ever access to clean lighting, a fridge, power for a laptop, etc.

I'm not being obtuse at all. What do *you* think it was an example of, oh-so-clever AC? Go on, spell it out, if it's so fucking obvious, clever clogs.

Oh, you're an anarchist. I respect anarchy as a thought-through political position, although I disagree profoundly with it. A bit like how I feel about hard left positions. You will do as you wish (especially if you're an anarchist!) but I think it would be better to make the positive case for political anarchism than the negative case.

My god, you don’t even know what mitigation is. Mitigation is not decarbonisation (“reduction of emissions”), you plonker. Mitigation is reduction of the negative impacts of climate change, like sea and flood defences, etc. And as it happens, we are decarbonising a lot, it’s just there’s a lot more to do.

Globally, we spend $1.5 trillion dollars a year on fossil fuel extraction, ie on drilling, mines, wells, production platforms, equipment, labour, maintenance and the energy to operate them, but not including the fuels themselves. We’ve been spending at this level for literally 80 or more years, and most of that investment is now pointless because wells and fields run dry. By comparison, we still only spend $0.85 trillion a year on renewables today, and have only spent at this kind of level for about 5 years, and already we are at the point where that’s providing something like 20 to 25% of global useful energy, and those assets will continue to be useful for decades without depleting and without requiring large opex because there’s no fuel to extract, transport and combust. In other words, each dollar invested in building renewable capacity can displace future fuel extraction costs for decades.

We need to do both things, decarbonise and mitigate. And our efforts at decarbonising are not as fast as they should be, but are undoubtedly much better than not trying at all. We are unquestionably moving to a world of electrification of most transport and low temp heat, lots of high temp heat, and a fair number of industrial processes. Plus also a world of enormously expanding electrification too, as people in the developing world leapfrog unreliable and pricey grids and go to solar & BESS & EV two and three wheelers.

But what was it an example of?

Now I’m even more confused by the moderation! This place is weird sometimes.

What was?