If you think that is harassment then this is hopeless. Have a good day.

You are able to drill and burn oil along with transmit the electricity without technology that requires rare earth minerals which are the electronics I was referring to.

Second, it clearly wasn't against the law because they dropped the charges and gave her a settlement.

Third, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to say it. The law does not dictate morality.

If the parliament passed a law saying you cannot criticize them, would you say well it is the law and as such it isn't a violation of free speech? Would you call somebody doing that a criminal?

Fourth, the police literally said "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.". Meaning the offense was literally her thinking. If you are not allowed to have wrong think then there is clearly thought crimes.

Second, if it was a legitimate arrest why was she was paid out by the government for a settlement?

Also, this has happened to multiple people who haven't organized prayer vigils in the past, not that it would matter if they had.

I don't think you know what happened. At least one case was a person standing quietly outside on a public sidewalk while not impeding traffic or people walking.

At best you can say it is loitering.

Why do you people argue so incessantly when you clearly don't know what you're talking about?

China, Brazil, Russia and other countries have a lot of rare earth minerals to build electronics for turbines and other sources of power.

Australia, Canada, Russia and other countries have a decent amount of uranium.

So, yes, some countries meet the definition of energy sovereignty.

> Same for solar, except that panels and batteries operate for way longer than drills and pumps.

This is not about factories, but raw material as I said in a previous comment that you responded to. Most countries don't have uranium. A lot of countries do not have rare earth minerals for electronic chips.

> If no one is sovereign then sovereignty is meaningless. Who cares

The person I was originally responding to did and was claiming that you could achieve sovereignty with renewables.

I never made the claim that nuclear would make a country sovereign. Only a small number of countries could have sovereignty with nuclear.

If there is a push to do a specific clean energy I think we should go for it regardless of the cost. If you think the climate issue is going to be a very severe issue then you should take every option at our disposal and encourage every push for an alternative to fossil fuels. Since you are refusing this, then I assume you don't think it is severe.

Large countries may be able to hedge against downtime, but smaller countries can't. Also, like I said, we don't really know the impact of all of this which is why we should diversify as much as possible. One of those diversifications should be nuclear as well as solar, wind, and hydro.

If you get cut off from global oil trade while having oil in the ground but no ability to make drills, what use is the oil? If you want sovereignty then it is critical to have the ability to make drills, tankers, etc in your country if you rely on oil.

This is no different than solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc when it comes to renewables. If you don't care about sovereignty then great, you are good to go. If you do, then you need to be able to handle everything yourself otherwise you are always going to be reliant on other countries.

Electronic chips in wind turbines, hydro stations, etc.. Believe it or not but all of these use chips...

> Again, by your definition, almost no country is "sovereign" for anything. Not fossil fuels, not PV and renewables, and certainly not nuclear. It's an impossible standard but only renewables get held to it.

I am not holding renewables to it. The person I was responding to made the erroneous claim that you would be sovereign with renewables. "Renewables are cheap now and they also solve the sovereignty issue." I am just pointing out that most countries wouldn't actually have sovereignty and would still be reliant on other countries.

I am the one holding the consistent standard since I believe most countries wouldn't be sovereign regardless of them using fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.