Kan en energi-bot give fornuftige svar på forhold vedrørende Danmarks specielle situation?
Døm selv – gå til Alex Epstein AI og se hvad du synes. Her er et eksempel:
Should Denmark invest even more in wind and solar energy production?
- While Denmark has made significant investments in wind and solar energy, it’s important to consider the full context of these energy sources. Firstly, Denmark’s ability to use a high percentage of wind and solar energy is largely due to its ability to import and export large amounts of electricity from its neighbors. When the wind dies down or there’s too much wind for Denmark’s electricity needs, it relies heavily on its neighbors. In 2019, Denmark imported 50% as much power as it generated and exported 30% as much power as it generated. This is not a luxury that every country, including the US, can afford.
- Secondly, despite its heavy reliance on wind and solar, Denmark has some of the highest electricity prices in the world. This is a direct consequence of the high costs associated with these energy sources, including the costs of backup power sources and grid modifications needed to accommodate their intermittent and unpredictable nature.
- Lastly, it’s important to remember that while wind and solar energy are often touted as “clean” energy sources, they also have significant environmental impacts. These include the large amounts of land required for wind and solar farms, the environmental damage caused by mining the materials needed for wind turbines and solar panels, and the challenge of disposing of these materials once they reach the end of their useful life.
- So, should Denmark invest even more in wind and solar energy production? That’s a decision for the Danish people and their government to make. But it’s crucial that they, and we, consider the full context of these energy sources, including their costs, limitations, and environmental impacts.
- In my view, a better approach would be to invest in the development of more cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally friendly energy sources, such as advanced nuclear power. This would provide a more sustainable path to energy abundance and human flourishing.
Ikke så tosset. Du kan prøve at fodre den med andre spørgsmål, mens vi spekulerer over, hvordan al den påståede gratis sol og vind kan føre til højere og højere el-priser.
En ekstra sørgelig krølle på historien er, at diverse tiltag der udføres under påskud af, at man ønsker at reducere CO2 af hensyn til klimaet, næppe har nogen som helst målbar effekt. Ja, CO2 er en ‘drivhusgas’ (og vi skal være glade for det!), men stigende koncentrationer fra det nuværende niveau gør langt mere gavn end skade.
Men så methanudslip da?! Nu hvor herskerne vil medicinere drøvtyggere for at mindske methanudslip. Nuvel, også her, er der grund til at slå lunkent vand i blodet (min fremhævelse).
For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008. So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts.
Staten og dens kumpaner ser det ikke som sin opgave at tjene befolkningen. Det er muligt at de stikker sig selv blår i øjnene, men vi andre bør have lært lektien. Skruen uden ende ender med at blive til en skruestik.