JohnDClay

Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you'll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there's already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.

Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.

Agree on offshore wind, but it's also got intermittency.

You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That's a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn't have representative grid loads overnight.

The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.

Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You'll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I'm sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.

Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It's less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?

I have no idea. But maybe the gravitational location would appear to asymptotically approach the event horizon similar to how light from an object would appear to just approach the horizon and then stay there.

I'll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.

Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It's when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.

It's still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You'll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.

I would define more living or truly living as living the Good Life. What that looks like is the fundamental question of philosophy, but I think a component we haven't touched on yet is helping others. I don't think we should help other people because it gives us a happy experience, but because it fulfills who we ought to be.

I didn't think living=experiencing.

I don't think that, but saying 'the purpose of life is to live' implies more life is more better.

Not necessarily, living longer could be at odds with experiences like sky diving or bull running.

Absolutely, that'd lead you to as many partners as possible while discouraging birth control. Plus tangentially it'd incentive trying to reduce the number of children other people have to increase your share of the gene pool. (Which I think is one of the paths you were getting at with eugenics)

How would you prioritize what to experience? By novelty? Or would you be happy to watch every movie ever made?

I mention those because it's a common trope in fiction for curiosity of experiences to lead down disturbing paths. Slanesh in 40k comes to mind.