• 78 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Feb 21, 2021


  • I already outlined Germanys problem it is the crippled energy network, a network that was not designed for renewables and decentralized solutions. Fossil fuel debate is over as I explained that other things also depend on it, of course you import more and more because demand is higher and higher that does not start with energy and does not only stop with energy. Making transition will also forces you to use fossil sources.
  • No one except you talked about coal, that is correct. My proposal does not even mention coal or the relevance since exploiting another resource is not put into consideration.
  • You cannot ditch fossil. Since there is no alternatives, you annoy me with your repeatedly copy and paste nonsense.
  • Pollution does not exist with wind energy and pollution si human created problem not natural one. This I already linked in multiple threads. Its an industrial problem combined with cities, cars, etc. Not nuclear as nuclear does not itself create pollution, maybe how you mine uranium, if we put all into consideration but that is all. My model is also not about co2 and pollution since none of my mentioned stuff produce per-se any pollution, only once to establish them which is acceptable.
  • Time gamble can fail, I already mentioned it. Its dangerous to think every problem can be solved. The fossil topic cannot be solved and never will be solved. As practical everything you create, t-shirts, toothpaste depends one way or another on oil. Creating chemical alternatives also only shit the problem, you still need to use - something. And most resources are limited one way or another.
  • We can ditch nuclear perfectly, there is no statistics that contradicts that, the provided and mentioned statistics here are based mainly on coal, again no one talked coal. Those presented statistics also put not several things into consideration, like growth and demand as well as money factors, they are usually on CO2 … Which is pointless since you compare that against coal yet again. Wind is not coal. They are also written my american, USA gives less shit about renewables than Germany or for that matter EU.

Discussion is over since I now repeat myself again and again. I have no interest in talking about semantics, it is irrelevant if its 20, 30 or 100 years the outcome will be the same, faster … slower … irrelevant in the big context.

already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.

My proposal is not about natural selection. It addresses overpopulation, which is a problem, if there is no further growth or not is not the question, it is about maintaining the status quo because people are not willingly to sacrifice something, which this thread clearly demonstrated … I want more kids I want this … no but I this and that … hard reality is when you confronted with past action that clearly showed there is a problem, ignore it and continue like nothing happened…

Glad you know how our population in the future will look like, will quote you in 10 years when we hit 10B with no end in sight as history showed us that we usually continue and not stop. But we will see who has last word here. Not much into speculation.

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.

  • Thorium as well as molten salt still need to be feed with fresh material, you gain max 1000 years, this is already calculated you still run out and the more reactors you create the faster those 1000 years will shrink. Compensating is not possible.
  • You still produce waste.
  • You still have downsides, lots of them, linked them multiple times already.
  • Nuclear war is already at risk with Ukraine, the risk is not theoretically, it is actually real threat and even if there is no Ukraine, the next political conflict will come so or so.
  • If nuclear fallout happen then you have other problems to worry about than climate. This is then only the cherry on top.
  • I do not argue human life here, with no one. Better … when is it better … when 1 dies … 10, 100… when is enough enough. Nuclear killed thousands of people, there is not even a statistic on how many people die alone of mining the uranium that causes cancer. Maybe 5000k± and how many will die in next years when next reactors blow up and how will climate respond when you pump in waste water back into ocean and claim is all clean, secure … unpredictable…

Nuclear is mass suicide supported by Trump voter, same misguided people.

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.

Will monitor the news when the next disaster occurs if you volunteer going into the death trap to help when the next reactor got hit my the next tsunami.

No supporter will then open his mouth… or volunteer… you can count on it…

I choose none of it because diasters will happen with nuclear energy or not, what you change is once the next tsunami hit the next nuclear power plant that you deliberately risk peoples live on a gamble so that you can continue to do whatever you do best, exploiting the earth and their resources and think you can win a prize with this strategy. You can and will always lose with this kind of thinking.

History showed that Nuclear Power plants do not reduce or keep the climate how it is, we got overall +2C since we use nuclear, within 60-100 years climate changed that much, with and without nuclear. Nuclear power plants will not stop the growth and the demand and you numbers are in general too high. 6C in net 100 years is unrealistic.

You can use the nuclear material from atomic bombs, use this as a middle ground to get rid of it, of course the waste issue will continue to exist when the music stops playing but it would be more efficient than using it as threat.

Once green systems are in place, it is overall cheaper for the consumer. I could post what I would pay for nuclear … numbers are rising each year not sinking btw … and then what I pay for green energy … numbers are falling each year.

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…

No one here talked about germany and coal. No one. Germany invested more than france or US for renewables. Coal is not renewable. Nice try tho.

We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was

What you smoke man, nuclear already runs for 50+ years now as transition and it did not helped, you think creating more nuclear energies is the solution while ignoring nasty downsides, how many people you think dies for mining the uranium. No mentioning in any statistics …

In the time that you wait for the research results, you still need to produce energy. Nuclear is better than fossils in that regards, especially consider the climatic emergency.

In the time you create more nuclear plants you can create easy peasy wind and off-shore systems. Planning nuclear power plant and when it goes online is typically according to Wikipoopia a process that takes 10-17 years. In that time you can create thousands of wind parks. Your logic is fundamentally broken, as I clearly outlined that the waste problem cannot be solved, you trade one problem for another, entirely bed on time, which is dangerous, possible also risk human life because the next tsunami will come in the meantime.

So what we just stop using electricity until we can have enough renewable production? But no, you said yourself we should go on with tech and even planes, so not that either.

We just need to stop building more power plants and create wind, water etc systems. Its that simple. Tech allows you to combine multiple solutions.

  • 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.

Thanks, captain Hindsight. But once you see you have not yet invested enough in renewable, you should not ditch nuclear that quickly in favor of more coal.

No one mentioned coal here, did I nope. I mentioned multiple times, wind , water etc. Glad you ignored everything.

When did I say anything in favor of raising the number of nuclear plants? Once again again, I talk about keeping it steady until we get rid of fuel-based energy production.

The demand is not stead it goes up and you need to compensate. We already produce lots of renewable energy. Only US is pro Nuclear because Billy G and their marketing videos that you can drink uranium. Downplaying every disaster on youtube. Grotesque.

Production and research are two different things. We need to research for cleaner energy, but we still need to produce energy in the meantime.

I already covered research in the opener. Your logic is nonsense as you can use the money you waste for nuclear graveyard that you could put into research and fusion as well as upgrading the old energy network. I already said that, thanks for ignoring to make no point.

We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was

We had 50+ years as transition already and we did not enough, no we need to act now, latest study proves me right. NOW is what counts, not in 100 years. People here claim nuclear is an answer, read the comments. Just above, such as … oh you support climate disasters because you do not like nuclear.

  • 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.

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.

I hate humans, hybris, stupid, selfish.... the waste will blow up like popcorn one day... The stupidity is grotesque and reminds me on the dontlookup movie...

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.

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.

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.

  • 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.

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.

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.

🌬⚙ > In 2020, the EU and UK combined had the capacity to produce around 49% of their electricity from renewables, almost twice that of the US' 25%, according to the International Renewables Energy Agency.

My proposal on what we should do until 2050
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. 🥺

New CO2 Dashboard: Atmospheric Levels, Human Emissions and Absorption and More
Keep in mind this is not absolute or a reference for something because it is not 100 percent accurate, but it gives you an first overview and overall impression how things are.

Arch Linux 2022.04.05 I already contacted 2 maintainers that we maybe finally get a proper changelog page.

- [Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change]( - [IPCC scientists say it's 'now or never' to limit warming ]( - [WHO says 99% of world's population breathes poor-quality air]( - [IPCC "now or never" if world is to stave off climate disaster]( - [We have the tools to save the planet. Politics is in the way, IPCC report says]( We are in the Endgame, friends...

🥺 science + eggheads ❤️, always amazing with what they come up with...

- 00:00 We’re thinking about energy wrong - 01:17 The stick: climate change - 02:25 Why you’re taught to conserve energy - 03:23 Why we should use more clean energy - 04:36 The carrot: energy abundance - 05:38 Why poor countries need more energy - 06:39 Why everyone needs more energy Since this community runs in an infinity circle, there are the ones who say we cannot do anything, or only slow it down and the others like me who say technology is the only solution this video might seems to be interesting because it talks about those repeating discussion points which I think is worth to share.

Arch Linux 2022.04.01 Lemmy blocks the URL for whatever reasons ^ so I had to put it into the body.

Reminder that this is a test but it looks promising.

Lets push it to 50 by 2050 friends.... 🤗. I have absolute faith that by 2100 everything is 100 percent green, this is the only way. Maybe even earlier, depending on how fast we get Fusion running.