this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2022

12 points (100.0% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

204 readers

1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

theloneforager@lemmy.ml

Chloe@lemmy.ml

My proposal on what we should do until 2050 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml to c/green@lemmy.ml

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Few things before I get down talked

I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.

You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.

Invest more money into Fusion Power.
Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.

This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.

🥺

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Upvoting, not because I agree with C-K, but because it's a good discussion topic and a reasonable starting point for said discussion.

What the fuck is the point of a discussion if you already agree.

Upvote worthy topics. Downvote dumb comments.

[–] Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't agree with everything you say (specifically, I think it's a little silly to abandon fission power when we don't yet have fusion and could be decades away from practical fusion reactors.), but I think you're right in the sense that it will take drastic, often unpopular actions to get the world back on the right track.

Of course, the real problem isn't coming up with the solutions. It's implementing them despite the unpopularity and lack of political will.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is silly to store the waste under your table and expect nothing will happen in 100k years. Fusion already was running, short but it was. Silly is to pump and waste money instead of pushing fusion.

I was not once wrong in this thread. It will happen, no need to be an einstein, next disaster will come....

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Climate change is not a thing of the future. It is a reality NOW for the most vulnerable people in the world. As for fusion, this video by sabine hossenfelder is still the biggest influece on my views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The point is that the disasters getting worse not better. I have an entire community for fusion, I do not need videos, I in general give shits about videos.

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

i share the video not to convince you, but to hear your points countering its arguments.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We are now on an off-topic level. Since I am not here to explain the science behind my proposal, I only clearly say we need to fund those projects more, use the money for it and not for nuclear and make the transition better now than later.

However, I will address some things here.

I actually saw her video, she is into science and involved into such topics. So, she is at least are more credible source then the typically YouTuber who stitches something together and thinks that this is reality. She usually makes her homework and she admitted struggling with the video, because its a delicate and complex problem. Hands down, this is not solvable anytime soon, I think 10, 20, 30 years. She mention older problems going back to the 80s when this idea started to gain more attraction because cold war problematic and the first actual research was done on a bigger scale outlining possible problems, that is important as it shows the history and the progression we made. Since then science evolved, we got better methods and it is close to finally run in the real world. This is important to mention. There are like with every tech problems, and it usually takes decades to fix, I mention it because this is key essence of my proposal. Use the time now and not later. The faster you start on researching into alternatives to more time you have to perfect the process.

I give her points that she tries to explain the fusion reactor problems that actually exist, they are more or less correct, the numbers she mention or the underlying math is subject to another thread as this is controversial topic on its own, some say so others say other numbers and there are several systems with different outcomes, tokamak, iter and other systems work a bit different and their efficiency depends on various variables. It should be noted that those systems are TEST reactors, not the ones actually for mass producing energy, they are examples to test the math and the idea. Those are used to test the theory, final solution might look different based on how the outcome of those tests will be.

I am absolutely not downplaying that there are still problems with fusion, the more I say we need to pump more money into research to get this finally running.

I am not here debating numbers, because they might change with further improvements.

I think she outlined also the same as I said

Resources are limited
We need to check on what research we invest into
Marketing is bad, btw on both ends - Fusion as well as Nuclear - on both ends they typically play with useless numbers to make it look better than it actually - currently - is. I am not really going to debate this as this is pointless since no fusion is actually running 24 - 7 so those numbers and marketing is purely made by hopes, dreams and promises. Not to mention that when you change some variables you get other numbers. As she correctly mention q total vs q plasma.
My proposal directly mention that we should use wind, water etc more that are secure, even if there is a disaster, I typically plan with disasters and destruction on put this into consideration already. It is easier to rebuild than invest into an uncertain system with no end solution. The argumentation against this point of my proposal is something I cannot agree into, as nuclear is not a time stretcher because you shift problems and it did not helped the climate, we still have the issues, and I clearly outline that fusion is also not a end solution but it possible solves one problem to research into other problems that need to be solved. The difference here is that you do not store atomic bombs under your table, fusion energy radiation is ENTIRELY gone within 60-100 years, this is acceptable and more realistic to predict. Meaning I take this anytime over atomic waste that needs to be stored so long that governments will fundamentally change and the politics until then will also change fundamentally. Fusion simply, even if now imperfect simply provides a bigger opportunity in terms of long term planing, as the process can be improved over time and the risks are here much much less and more acceptable, the burden here is way less than with nuclear.

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

have you even read the IPCC summary for policymakers? because you're not on the right track.

AR6 WG III: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They prove me right

The mitigation potential is uncertain For nuclear energy, modelled costs for long-term storage of radio-active waste are included. Potential risks, knowledge gaps due to the relative immaturity of use of biochar as soil amendment and unknown impacts of widespread application, and co-benefits of biochar are ..

If I read such things you know who wrote that, how you predict 1 million years of coast for nuclear waste, its nor possible, as new plants create just only more waste and no one knows how many plants are build in that time nor can anyone predict possible risks here.

I would not give much about it because no one can predict the long term future and with the next govt and next disaster everything change again. In 10 years we get other papers saying other things. Does not change underlying and fundamentals.

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can't just read half a sentence and say it proves you right. "Mitigation potential is uncertain...as it depends on the reference emissions being displaced". They specifically mean that its effectiveness depends on where and how it's used. If you had actually taken a look at the chart they are talking about, you'll know that they have concluded that nuclear is part of a solution, though not a be-all-end-all solution. In my opinion, a rather small part, but in terms of Gt CO2eq-1, it's still tremendously important especially when it complements wind and solar for base loads

Also, "for nuclear energy, modelled costs for long-term storage of radio-active waste are included" may sound like it supports your argument if comprehension skills happen to be lacking or one just happens read it without context, but it really just is a footnote of the chart and it actually goes against your argument.

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is the figure they refer to if you somehow managed to skip the arguably most important page of the SPM...

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

new plants create just only more waste

The new generation of nuclear power plants uses the waste from first generation plants, producing waste with a 50 year half life. In a way, it's getting rid of that million year nuclear waste in favor of something much more manageable.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

When liberalism is unable to create a genuine actionable solution that will be followed by any policy maker 💀

If you like: an actual future Have you considered: Marxism

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

lul

to quote you ...

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Okay, yeah, I don't mean this antagonistically, I really do mean how do you think you'd get any world governments to agree to

Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it. [What would the timeline for this look like? What about nations like Nigeria and India that are still industrializing and without cheap energy like coal will not be able to keep pace with the rest of the world, effectively locking over a billion people in just those two countries off from industrial society]
2 humans only policy. [This penalizes the only countries that are still growing at more than 1 child per person which are overwhelmingly third world nations. How would you get their governments to agree to doing this?]
Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things. [The United States is able to enjoy a world currency monopoly because it has the military backing to say "if you don't play by our rules we will crush you". You can't convince the United States to disarm because their empire and economy straight up depends on it, and you can't convince non-US-Aligned countries to disarm because then they will just get invaded by the United States (Google Libya giving up their nukes)]
War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all. [Refer to above]

That's what I mean, many of these solutions are not realistic long term, and additionally saying

I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society.

shows a lack of imagination for what's possible. Planes are awful, period, every part of their use as mass-transit is inefficient and subsidized no matter how cool it all is. Trains are cheaper and more efficient for mass transportation. Wherever you may live there are no trains, but there's a reason people in China and Japan use them so often.

For more of what I'm talking about refer to this.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Govt gets their data from energy industry who typically pay for so-called research, Microsoft for example is pro nuclear. So the govt typically tend to listen to them much more.
I am not interested in guessing, or time, as said its a game about semantics, does not matter if we talk 10, 20 100 years the end result is my point. India plans new power plants, recently announced. My research from Nigeria is thin, as I am not interested that much in the country, I know people from India so my interest is higher here.
The child policy is something I am willingly to debate, 3 kids maybe but no more. There could be a compromise for cities and housing. I do agree that e.g. in africa this might be critical but overall there should be done. Its about resource management.The govt could give a reward, money for example to encourage it.
Your US example lacks as US gives so far less about renewables than EU, already linked + mentioned. Again Microsoft - US + China - supports pro nuclear. And presidents in US history are not known to be the smartest in general, hands down. #dontlookup
If everyone gets rid of all weapons I do not see why this is not a nice long term goal, we should start the process better now than later.

shows a lack of imagination for what’s possible. Planes are awful, period, every part of their use as mass-transit is inefficient and subsidized no matter how cool it all is. Trains are cheaper and more efficient for mass transportation. Wherever you may live there are no trains, but there’s a reason people in China and Japan use them so often.

AHH no I am with you on this one, I am also pro tech. Not getting rid of everything and back to stone age policy.

I take almost no YouPoop video serious in serious discussion, as you find millions of - opinions - not research or something for and against everything. Irrelevant especially then when no timestamps, scientific research or sources are mentioned in those videos.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He actually cites sources in the comments, I also don't think dismissing youtubers period is a good policy, there's some good ones even though I admit and this one is especially exemplary because he is a scientific marxist

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Does not change underlying thing that those YouTubers are very often not the actual scientists and you find to every paper counter papers claiming the world is wrong and they are right.

Does not scale, I can counter your video with 100 other videos, leads to nothing ... The discussion is here about fundamentals not what X says because the topic is my solution and not solution from youtuber z.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bruh that's not very productive then 💀

You're not the only person that's thought about this, this is different from the usual youtubers we're both aware of, if you just discount saying NOTABUG - WONTFIX to anyone that's already thought hard about it you're not going to have any useful or realistic framework in place. Many people have already created solutions, we just need to hear them out and debating between each other in this way isn't productive for anything other than internet masturbation.

If you had applied the same logic to mathematical works, say you don't even begin to listen to mathematical novels from a specific area because they're "not trustworthy" how would the collaboration be reached to finally attain calculus, Fourier Series, etc? Not everything can be figured out by one person, if you refuse to hear what an entire platform says period you're not going to be sitting on the shoulders of any giants, you're just going to be sitting at their feet. All this to mean, dismissing Second Thought because he's a youtuber is not productive.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Point is that I am pro tech and I see tech as possible compromise in my proposal. Undermining my opinion based on what xyx says would only result that my proposal becomes less efficient. My framework is more realistic than storing trash under your kids table, backup up by scientists not sponsored by Microsoft.

I trust scientists that they do their homework, not youtubers cherry picking what they think is reality.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah but what I'm saying is that there's failings with a purely technochratic solution that already present themself; because we have the technology but not the actual political will. Ignoring the political issues is literally useless, it feeds into the climate issues you say you care about. If you'd rather a blog post by a similar marxist that explains the same points if text helps your brain, then I can oblige, but the points are still fr.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is a team effort sure thing, mentioned already. I care more than most people here cause I have solar, wind and other stuff on my roof since 25 years.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah but by not sufficiently looking into the political causes for why we're in the situation we're in now you're accidentally enabling further climate catastrophe. That's very good you've had solar and wind on your roof for 25 years, but that's certainly not a reasonable solution for the single mother of 3 in the city. What I'm saying is that your framework is fundamentally built around liberal thinking, and you should expand it by seeing what scientific marxists have to say. Because they've had the solutions for a long time, they're just not at the steering wheel. One scientific marxist I enjoy is Second Thought on Youtube, but I know the blog red sail is pretty swell as well.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Further climate catastrophe... there always will be the next catastrophe, I think you are delusional how thinks actually on earth work, there always will be an earthquake, volcano etc. This is why I highly suggest getting rid of nuclear energy because the next shit will happen and you measure it on worst case scenarios and not hopes and dreams. Next tsunami will come, with or without our influence and the next power plant will blow up like popcorn and there is nothing you can do, which is the entire basis for my proposal.

The govt needs to support those changes to make it more attractive and not advertise, oh you can sip nuclear waste like mother milk. You need to change things now, we had enough time, now we are running out and nuclear did not solved anything at all, even time is not an argument here since we barely created alternatives in the time, those solutions are as old as humans we only improved it.

You and your maxists I give no shit about politician direction or philosophy we need to do this together, everyone.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah but there's a reason when covid came there's a million+ american deaths and only about 4 thousand chinese deaths. The difference is marxism, call me delusional all you want but having the right ideas at the helm will actually affect change, not telling people they as individuals can fix and debate it (they can't)

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

We had viruses before covid, we will continue to have new ones, man made, or natural bottom line here is there will be new ones, unpredictable. You cannot predict all possible outcomes, it is not like in a marvel movie. What we learned from Fukushima was, you cannot control and predict all nature based events and disasters but there will be some... END.

Right ideas, can I see your proposal. This thread is my idea and proposal that can work if we all supporting it as fundamental ground.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I can't give you the whole shpeel, but I can offer you this youtube video that acts as a nice overview of what the socialist project in Bolivia has done. For further research on what marxists do when in power, I would also look at the sustainability policies that Cuba is working towards and how China is working to wean itself off coal by 2040 and expand it's anti-desertification policies. I can reccomend this video for specific policy for cuba and what the cuban people have found to work for them.

Additionally, I would reccomend asking comrades on !genzedong@lemmygrad.ml for more knowledge research on what China does and has in plans to combat climate change, because many of the sources are not available easily in english and many comrades over there can speak and read mandarin sources (if not find well translated sources that I would otherwise link).

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I do not give much about YT videos, I already expressed it, YT and Wikipedia are not sources, they are stitch something together based on actual sources and those sources are books and scientific research. So link the research not a video switched together by a clown.

Since you love YT crap I have some videos too

Pointless, you see, as I present videos, there are same amount of counter videos claiming the opposite, Yt is by no means any credible source, especially not from clown youtubers.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Oh, actually I found this really good rebuttal to most of those videos

spoiler

The point you missed is that you yourself are bad at considering other people's perspectives and believe yourself to be always right and that's why everyone on this thread is disagreeing with you. Your solutions range from impossible to implement to useless and you're not open to real discussion about it, making this thread not about climate change, but about debating you for no reason whatsoever. Stop taking it so personally and being so self righteous

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I explained in-depth now, across several threads that nuclear provides no solution over the long run, there is nothing to debate.
My solutions are sure as hell not impossible, they need effort from everyone. Your claim is based on nothing. Everyone can do little things, put solar cells on their roof and all such little things.
I provided real insights, links and I am not the one who posts memes here, that is you.
There is in general no debate with nuclear people possible, as you clearly display here.
I am not self righteous, I provided a long term solution that will so or so come in place as depleting resources comes to an end, building more plants will just speedup the process, waste money, pile the trash even higher and the next tsunami will prove me right.

Nuclear people are just incredible low minded in general, you bring arguments forward like that uranium runs out in 130 years and even then they refuse to accept reality.

Opinions from nuclear supporter are so incredible weak and delusional and so far from reality that its grotesque. We had nuclear for 50+ years now, it did not worked out and in the meantime we wasted resources and opportunities in mass to build better and more secure future.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Aww, you're so right :) I was talking about nuclear the whole time and not the fact you were ignoring capitalism as the culprit

[–] DPUGT2@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think that anyone who attempts to interfere in my procreation is an enemy of mankind, and should be slaughtered and left unburied for the carrion feeders to dismember.

My own children tell me that they want lots of babies when they grow up. You're welcome to have fewer to offset that if you like.

Declare [...] nuclear illegal,

So basically you're pro-global-warming. Gotcha.

War should be declared - useless - and we should work together.

What will you do when other people declare it useful, then attack you? Will you say "but this is useless" as they mow you down?

Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal.

The rapists of the world will certainly laud you as a hero should you succeed.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Selfish
Does not get the bigger picture, everyone must sacrifice something and give up some comfort. The price you pay for a bigger goal.
I am not pro global warming as wind energy does not create co2 emissions.
It is a difference if you fight with nuclear weapons in your back pocket or a kitchen knife, see the difference ... War is never useful, everyone should know that.
Rapist do not need uranium based weapons, also not guns to do the crime...

You tried, you failed you are selfish... Average Human.

[–] ziproot@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I am fine with nuclear energy as a temporary solution since climate change is such a big problem, and we need all we have to deal with it. Once that problem is dealt with, then we can continue to ramp up low-emissions renewable energy. I think we should wait to declare nuclear illegal until climate change is solved.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Climate change will not be solved with nuclear.
Climate change will also not be solved with renewables.
Betting mainly on winning time is a high gamble, once you hit a specific line there is no turning back and some problems can maybe never be solved.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] DPUGT2@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most likely you'd not even need to do so. If renewables are so awesome, then surely they are cheaper and cheaper always wins out over more expensive, barring perverse incentives.

[–] ziproot@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, declaring nuclear energy illegal means destroying functioning power plants that have very low emissions. We should wait to destroy nuclear energy until we can replace it with renewable energy, and we should not be having to replace nuclear energy until we've replaced fossil fuels and biofuel.

EDIT: Basically, we should start out by getting rid of* what is most polluting (agriculture/industry emissions), and then working our way down from there (coal, natural gas, oil, biofuel, and nuclear, in that order).

*Agriculture emissions can be offset by transitioning to a more vegan diet. I don't call it plant-based because that excludes fungi and bacteria that we also consume.

[–] DPUGT2@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Selfish

There is a world of the future, 200 years from now... my (many) descendants live there. You have none, you are only known from history (in general even, no one knows your name specifically), and only as a fool who voluntarily chose extinction. Your views are told as a cautionary tale, so that people can avoid your sort of mental illness.

The price you pay for a bigger goal.

Your goals are not mine.

I am not pro global warming as wind energy does not create co2 emissions.

Nuclear creates none either. It comprises approximately 20% of worldwide electricity production. Tossing it would mean that it'd end up getting replaced with coal or natgas.

It is a difference if you fight with nuclear weapons in your back pocket or a kitchen knife, see the difference … War is never useful, everyone should know that.

"War is never useful" is certainly useful to warmongers who would have pacifists not defend themselves. War is useful to those who have already been attacked and wish to make it stop with something more than unicorn farts and rainbow wishes.

Rapist do not need uranium based weapons, also not guns to do the crime…

Rapists' would-be victims are often smaller and weaker than the rapists. While the rapists may not need guns, their would-be victims are made just as strong as their attackers... you're condemning them to violation so you can fantasize about juvenile utopias.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.

I understand that the construction of new nuclear facilities has its own ecological cost, also economically that money may be better invested in renewables. But I don't see the ecological gain from dismantling running nuclear plants during their planned life cycle.

Also, how do you justify giving priority on stopping nuclear product over fossil fuels? What good can there be in dismantling nuclear as quickly as possible if you have to import more coal and gas to compensate? (looking at you, Germany) Doesn't the ecological situation rather pressure us into giving up fossil fuels as fast as possible?

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)

during their planned life cycle.

I tend to agree on this, only because of the last line here. Running systems should be decommissioned when they are really finished. Nuclear power plant is finished within 60-80 years. I agree that it makes much more sense to let them run until their natural lifetime ends and they start to become inefficient, economical wise.

how do you justify giving priority on stopping nuclear product over fossil fuels?

Uranium runs out in 130 years. The idea, or my idea is that coal and nuclear energies should all be replaced. I fully understand your point.

In another thread I already mentioned that for example in Germany you can go fully green. The energy network gets their green energy from France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands based on water and wind. When they need more we provide them with more, when we need more we get more from their networks. Key is once again decentralized networks so your own home becomes self manageable and you only need to get energy when sun is not shining and wind is not blowing, also you can install batteries that hold around 20 years, I am currently in that process to do that for my apartment this summer, once that is done I do not need any external energy at all, even in Germany directly in a City.

The weak point is overall the energy network, which causes lots of problems and there is the 4 percent of energy that you waste for nothing which is because of the energy transport. EON and others did some research on this and they now try to compensate this with new and more modern superconductors cables that work up to 10 kilometres and are now improved, they work now under near room temperature, which at least would solve several problems in the industry since there is less energy wasted. I think the process can be improved to make it more efficient.

I think compensating nuclear is 100 percent possible, I have seen models but you need to build better networks, use more money to build more off-shore systems e.g. in the Ostsee and Nordsee which then fully utilizing water energy. But you need to get the money from somewhere and this would be nuclear energy, because maintaining waste is really really expensive and no one really talks about it. With that money alone you can build lots of wind parks, batteries to store sun and wind energy and combine everything and store it when it is really needed.

Doesn’t the ecological situation rather pressure us into giving up fossil fuels as fast as possible?

I doubt you can fully get rid of all fossil fuels in the next 300+ years. It is not only energy that is an issue, oil is used in pretty much everything that is synthetic. We need here the money for more scientific research on coming up with nature based solutions. For example you can use banana plants as plastic replacement for e.g. food packing, you can just throw the packing away, its natural, no chemicals no oil, nothing. We need to combine all of those ideas, not just one or two if we want to reduce the overall carbon footprint. My overall approach here relies on using such ideas and a bigger scale and combine everything we have.

I like to point out at this point that I did not considered the money factor at all, someone must create a model based on my idea and check the math if that is even possible or make sense. I did not put money in consideration due to the simple fact that I see climate, and survival as investment that cannot be measured with numbers. However, I am fully aware here that society as well as the people who pay or invest into it see it different, it is questionable if such a model can be applied but I think it is overall possible. It is drastic change until 2050 but I think doable.

load more comments (16 replies)

load more comments