the "soul" is just the answers to something scientist and theolgist couldn't understand a couple hundred years ago, humanity and especially theist are just slow to understand that we are just a biological machine

everything too complexe to understand have seen a simple theological answers, easy to understand and rassuring to believe, while the observation is far more cruel and nihilistic

so vertical farm but on the moon, such ingeniosity

regular farming seem difficult as radiation and the lack of atmosphere (asteroid impact) prevent farming at ground level

that's why vertical farming cost more than regular farming on earth but on the moon? seem mandatory

there some nice tech coming with IA for games

AI generated text Ai generated voice AI basic code

with the evolution of game engine that try to copy physic and reduce imput from dev like Lumen where dev dosn't need to place shadow anymore or Nanite for game optimization or realistic physic for fluid, gas, solid

it would be interesting if NPC become more alive with AI with their generated story, bahavior, voice and quest especially for RPG with engine tech like MassAI

the main problem imo is the power needed to use all those new tech, our CPU can't follow and other tech like light-based cpu aren't ready

it's more about the cost or limited interest than the "damage" done to earth

people talk about space tourism, a completly useless business that would end quickly as soon the economy suffer

the only thing worth is a space based industry and especially moon, asteroid and planet mining and "worth" is the most important thing here because for now it's completly impossible or at a completly absurd cost that make it not worth it

USA and China are fighting to place the first human base on the moon, it's more of a cold-war competition than anything else, unfortunaly physic tell us that humanity living outside earth and exploiting space is extreamly difficult and not worth it (for now?)

unless we find a way to drastically reduce the amont of material we need to send outside earth orbit you can.forget wathever mining operation in space, it's far cheaper to mine on earth

that mean produce everything we need outside earth, which is probably impossible this century

or drastically reduce the cost of sending something outside earth orbit, a space elevator? a giant space cannon? (would need something big enough to cover the entire european union from east to west) this also seem impossible this century

"Buildings and the built environment account for nearly 50% of all carbon emissions globally, according to Architecture 2030. Building operations contributes about 27% of emissions, while buildings materials and construction, and other construction industry energy use are estimated to account for another 20%. This represents an opportunity for buildings to be made more efficiently, and to adopt innovative technologies to generate emissions-free electricity.
BASF Corporation is currently testing the Aeromine system at a manufacturing plant in Wyandotte, Michigan. The patented technology was validated through joint research with Sandia National Laboratories and Texas Tech University."

what the point of talking about the co2 emission of construction when solar or wind rooftop power generation won't change anything about that? the co2 emission of appartment or house is because of their construction itself and after that their energy consumption, gas powered heating or worse oil

even with an electricity grid completly free of gas or coal (nuclear, hydro, solar and wind) the only way to reduce co2 is to lower the amont of heating or the use of air conditioner

solar and wind rooftop is interesting for being energy-independant if it's cheaper to install and maintain than 5year worth of paying the energy bill, if you can afford the cost, no need to lie and brand it as ecologic, also it's worth to mention the material used to make every rooftop of every occidental country able to generate power isn't really "ecological" far better to build a few nuclear plan than waste an absurd amont of ressource, for ecology at least

nuclear waste cost are already included in the electricity cost of any european country, the most iradiated waste part isn't even the size of a football field and that's for more than 50year of exploitation, yes bure isn't ready yet as "pro-environment" made the project take more time it would (bure wasn't the first choice)

you can't compare chernobyl and our current reactor as they are completly different, chernobyl could and have exploded, it's impossible now, physicaly impossible, using the titanic or driving at 100 km/h without belt as an argument won't change that fact

yes solar are profitable now, less when you include energy storage but still, they are profitable especially with an energy crisis,but it wasn't my concern, i said that relying on a energy source that use an absurd amont of material per kw/h was a mistake when your country don't own any mine that produce those material especially when the entire world will enter a scarcity era and country that export those material will no longer export them for their benefit

the same way europe need to develop the electric vehicle and public transport as we don't have a single drop of oil, and so we need to multiply our electricity generation by 2 at least, relying on gas and coal was a mistake, everyone see that with ukrain/russia war, now what will happen if china and taiwan start a war? china have the majority lf all rare earth metal in the world including lithium, i don't mind using renewable now that's profitable but it should only be temporary and nuclear should be favored as it provide far more independance in that regard

EDF is state owned and nuclear as a whole depend of a state as nuclear isn't capitalistic unlike other source of electricity including renewable, it's easy to build a couple of solar and wind farm as it's far cheaper and faster, it's morz difficult to invest in a project that require 10billion and take 10years, will facebook still exist in 10years? amazon? who know, France existed for thousand of years and will continue long after my death, that's why nuclear is state owned, and i don't even talk about national security, you can build bomb with them, nuclear bomb, dirty bomb even poison

i guess we will stop here as it become silly

i don't think you understand what intermittent mean based on how you use this word and try to mix it with nuclear, fission have always been a temporary solution just like gen3 were supposed to be temporary, scientist knew that one day uranium will deplete that's why gen4 are researched and that's why fusion are researched the holy grail of energy generation, until we find better (if possible) and that's not what intermittent mean

as for nuclear reducing it's power depending the energy grid demand, it's "normal" as nuclear just like fossile coal and gas isn't tied to wind or solar to work, you tell them to produce the amont of power you need and that's it

i'll add that the finish EPR that took 17year to build and 11billion will take 4-5year to pay itself, it's supposed to live for 60 to 80years, do you really think maintenance cost matter? obviously not, also the "danger" you mention is only created by fear of unknow and nothing else just like fukushima show, the nuclear incident didn't cause any death or sickness from radiation and like the UNSCEAR rapport show the evacuation was exagerated and poorly executed, it created fear and panic that caused far more death than the incident itself (mostly elder people)

in short if a nuclear incident happen the most reasonable thing to do is...nothing, maybe evacuate the very close area around the powerplant but that's it, the "danger" only exist for the press and politic to exploit but in reality it don't exist anymore with our modern reactor

nuclear can run h24 7d7 it's not the case for renewable but yes nuclear use a very small source of other energy to stabilize the demand on the grid, i'm french, historicaly we used hydroelectric for that purpoise but gas do it well as it's extreamly fast to activate

only renewable are intermittent as a lack of wind or a couple day of rain/clouds will ruin it, that's why country with lot of renewable have far more fossile powerplant installed to produce electricity when their renewable isn't available (once again, germany)

> But yes, it is the first time I hear solar and wind being called an intermittent energy source. Bold statement considering it is the cheapest form of electricity, renewable and dezentral. With a dezentral energy source being more valuable in the future as the energy hasn’t to be transported through the whole country but can be produced where it is needed

then you lack information about how renewable energy work in an energy grid, there a reason germany still use gas or coal and it's not because they love gas or coal but because renewable is intermittent and unnable to provide electricty h24 7d7 unlike fossile or nuke, this is also why gas company give money to anti-nuclear like greenpeace or politic directly as it secure their business

also solar is inneficient and there no reason technology will change that as there a physic limitation how much power they can generate, not because of it's material but the atmosphere itself, good luck changing that, this make solar less efficient than other energy source, sure right now you can gain some % with technology but once you hit the physic limitation it's over (unless you build a solar powerplant in space but it's EXTREAMLY expensive and certainly not avaiable for all humanity)

to replace petrole we either need a massive supply of hydrogen, something difficult as to produce hydrogen you need to spend 2x the energy it will provide, for 100MW of hydrogen you need 200MW from any source (fossile, nuke, renewable) or electric generator directly but still you need to increase the electricity generation of your continent just to replace petrole, this mean far more solar/wind farm this mean far more material as those ressource use an absurd amont of ressource (and rare metal on top of that) you get why it's a bad idea as ressource scarcity will become far worse in the coming year no?

i don't think you understand my point, solar is cheaper as other energy source allow it to be cheaper and gouvernment fund

when petrole will become more and more scarse it's price will get more and more expensive, an energy source such as solar that need a lot of material per kwh compared to more concentrated source of energy will become too expensive for country that don't have any mine as we import everything

european for exemple won't be able to maintain their energy policy for decade, solar and wind are just temporary, concentrated source of electricity will become far more attractive in a world that suffer from scarcity, that make nuclear the most interesting choice and you better pray we research gen4 fission or better fusion before it happen

people seem to focus too much on climat that they forget fossile energy made our civilisation, soon they will dissapear and the world isn't prepared

or simply use a better source of electricity? offshore wind farm are far more effective than solar, coal and gas powerplant are more effective than wind and nuclear beat everything

coal and gas will deplete within this century, solar and wind even if affordable right now will be more difficult to afford in a couple of years as petrole get more expensive and so transport get expensive as solar and wind require an absurd amont of material per kwh compared to fossile and nuke

and unfortunally nuclear gen4 aren't ready same for fusion, gen3 is still enough as long only a couple of country use it as uranium will also deplete this century (unless we develop gen4, thousand of years worth of uranium if we do)

if you own every mine to build solar/wind go for it otherwise build nuclear or if you don't care about climate stick with gas, german said it's "green" anyway