There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

I’m glad I’m old enough that I remember much more seasonally appropriate weather, if nothing else. It was really snowy in December when I was a kid in the 1980s and I think I only saw one green Christmas that whole time, while green Christmas is just normal now. We also didn’t have air conditioning until I was in my teens, because Canada had cooler summers, and for the odd hot night you’d just sleep in the basement. Eventually we moved to a house that had central air, but I don’t remember needing it the way we have the last 20 years.

I don’t have air conditioning now, but it hasn’t been a bad summer in Ontario so far heat wise, somehow we’re missing the big heat waves everyone else is getting. I’m lucky I get a lot of tree shade.

Magnus ,

I remember one white Christmas when I was a kid in the 90s since then it’s never snowed.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

It’s so sad.

jinarched ,
@jinarched@lemm.ee avatar

Where I’m from, we were massively talking about it in the 80s when I was a kid. It promply stopped by the end of the 90s. Then all of sudden, we don’t hear much about it.

It’s so fucked up to be told all your life that your are insane to believe in climate change, and then about 40 years later, most people talk about it as if it was a given.

We should not be anxious about climate change, we should be furious.

HopeOfTheGunblade ,
@HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social avatar

It was being talked about in newspapers a century ago. The fossil fuels companies have known for a very long time, and have been suppressing it for a very long time, hiring many of the same people involved in suppressing evidence that tobacco causes cancer. We should be torches and pitchforks in the street livid.

Snorf ,

I remember this also in the 80s. But we were mostly worried about the ozone. Then that got figured out, more or less, and we got stuck with reduce, reuse, recycle.

twistedtxb , (edited )
@twistedtxb@lemmy.ca avatar

Nobody stopped talking about it.

Its that the channels that we watch news on have now been fragmented / specialized to the point where we can “watch the news” and only get right wing propaganda.

CitizenKong ,

Yeah, I remember the topic from school in the 90s, where it said “if we don’t start to do anything about it soon, it will have serious catastrophic consequences in about 30 years”. And now here we are.

IrrationalAndroid ,

I was a kid in the early 2000’s and I remember that page from the science book that we were reading during class, and it was also already alarming us about climate change/global warming. And like you said, here we are…

Xanthobilly ,

Same generation here. I really think boomers and their selfish politics are greatly to blame for lost momentum.

Jonna ,

Fuck generational politics. There are class, gender, and racial divisions within each generation. We have more in common with working class and oppressed boomers than with ruling class members of our own generation.

Skyrmir ,

Just waiting for that sea level rise to kick in. There’s plenty of anchorages that are still too shallow for my boat.

whoisearth ,
@whoisearth@lemmy.ca avatar

This is the kind of dark humour we need! Winter’s are still too cold I will continue to idle my car on workdays to do my part for your boat lol

FilthyShrooms ,

Don’t worry, the ice is melting too!

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fd1650b7-e9a6-4f56-bb36-562682a13d4f.webp

NuclearArmWrestling ,

Big brain time - research where the new shoreline will be with sea rise and buy the land all around there. Wait a few years and boom - beachfront property.

md5crypto ,

Carbon is good for the atmosphere. It’ll open up farmland in Canada and Russia.

lolcatnip ,

Not funny.

CantSt0pPoppin ,
@CantSt0pPoppin@lemmy.world avatar

Missinformation

Pons_Aelius ,

When permafrost warms up it turns into a marshy bog, not farmland.

kevex_1992 ,

We just keep boiling and nobody cares.

Pons_Aelius ,

Plenty care but those that can affect change are the least affected by inaction.

The_Vampire ,

Don’t worry guys, I’m sure this is just natural weather fluctuation and has nothing to do with us messing with the climate for the past however many decades. We couldn’t possibly be suffering the consequences of our own actions (or at least the actions of a few with too much power). /s

AZERTY ,

Nah don’t worry bro. I separated my plastics from my trash so it’s fine now obviously.

Arsenal4ever ,

Welcome to the British Petroleum summer heat wave. Next up is the Exxon Mobile Hurricane season.

Fun fact about the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season, oil and gas platforms can get insurance against a storm in the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season, but homeowners in Louisiana can’t get any homeowners insurance due to the expected severity of the named storms in the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season.

doppelgangmember ,

Louisiana: come for the resources, leave the problems behind.

Arsenal4ever ,

And the shoreline!

AllonzeeLV ,

Yes, the planet was destroyed in the name of insatiable capitalist greed.

But for one shining moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders!

(and just to be crystal clear, not you)

cnbc.com/…/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-…

blue_zephyr ,

The planet will be fine. It’s us that should be worried.

AllonzeeLV ,

Agreed, we and other land mammals will suffer greatly, but life on Earth is hearty and just as the great George Carlin said, once we’re gone, the planet will heal itself from the failed mutation that was homo sapien.

WhiteHawk ,

For the love of christ, stop saying that. Every single time someone makes this comment. We. Get. It.

blue_zephyr ,

I’ll stop saying it the minute people stop saying we’re destroying the planet.

foo ,

Only an idiot thinks that when we say *we are destroying the planet " they literally means the planet will explode or something. It’s clear that we mean the only part of the planet that is meaningful for us, the biosphere.

blue_zephyr ,

Which we also won’t destroy. Life on earth will adapt, but we’re making it inhospitable for ourselves.

narp ,

Well, I guess all the life forms that are going extinct through the Holocene/anthropogene extinction event, which humans caused, don’t matter?

Sure there will be life on earth and it will adapt, but don’t act like we’re not taking down whole families of plants and animals with us… because it’s already happening.

Amir ,
@Amir@lemmy.world avatar

Honestly, I really don’t care about what happens to the planet after all humans are extinct…

FireMyth ,

Look genius- we know the planet will be just fine. When ppl say we are destroying the planet we obvious (except to you) are talking about our own survival on the planet.

foo , (edited )

Again Sherlock, nobody is talking about the frame of view of random animals that may or may not be fine. We are only talking about our frame of reference.

If you actually considered the semantics of “technically some people will still be alive but living in a mad max like apocalypse or jellyfish will be fine” means that our biosphere hasn’t been destroyed for humans you are being ridiculously pedantic.

r1veRRR ,

But it’s the idiots that CONSTANTLY argue that the world will be fine. The framing of it as protection of animals/the planet/the climate makes it incredibly easy for people to pretend it’s optional, not directly related to them. This isn’t a hypothetical point, EVERY SINGLE climate discussion I’ve ever witnessed some mouthbreather has argued that “the climate will continue to exist, it doesn’t need protecting”.

What needs protecting isn’t the planet, the ecology, the animals or plants, it’s US. It’s ENTIRELY an US problem.

Angry_Maple ,
@Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m sure that will make all of the plants and animals feels better…/s.

beta_particle ,

Don’t “/s” it

Call em a moron with your chest

postmateDumbass ,

People have refused to say that for centuries.

AllonzeeLV ,

Do we? Because the absolutely astonishing sense of self-importance humans have would indicate otherwise.

Other beings live here, and while humans fuck humans over in the name of greed and power, we bulldoze entire ecosystems without any consideration for the other creatures that lived here whatsoever.

No, you’re wrong. Most humans live, act, and speak as if the entire world, hell the entire universe, should be bent to better serve our naive, entitled species exclusively.

grue ,

It’s a thought-terminating cliche that serves to downplay the problem because “hurr durr the animals will be okay” (even though they actually won’t since we’re in the middle of the Anthropocene mass extinction, but never mind that) and to act as a derailment tactic.

gornar ,
@gornar@lemmy.world avatar

This is the best explanation I’ve seen for this

kava ,

Nature will inevitably adjust. This isn’t the first mass extinction and it won’t be the last. I’m more concerned about agriculture and how the changing climate could lead to mass starvation, refugee issues, etc. The animals can inherit the Earth after we blow ourselves up with nukes.

r1veRRR ,

I don’t read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.

But the world will be okay, it doesn’t need protecting. It’s the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. It’s human protection, not ecological protection.

DarkSpectrum ,

There are a lot of people still waking up to the situation so I think it’s worth saying even if you personally have heard it many times.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

in the name of insatiable capitalist greed

The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.

The path forward is nuclear and renewables for the next decades while we wait for grid-scale energy storage problems to be solved.

kescusay ,
@kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

There are no actual socialist countries, but if you’re referring to, for example, the Scandinavian countries, they use far less oil per capita than the United States.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

No, Scandinavian countries just have a healthy government. Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries. Though, them and France at least have started a nuclear build-out, which is needed to 100% de-carbonize the grid.

kescusay ,
@kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

I… don’t think we disagree? China has a corrupt communist government. I was specifically referring to socialist governments, and the ones that are frequently (mis)labelled as socialist are doing a lot better on oil consumption than either China or the United States.

Robaque , (edited )

If you’re splitting hairs about communism, socialism, and “mislabelling” (even though socialism is a generic term that encompasses communism…?), why are you describing China’s government as communist? Communism is (ideally, at least) stateless, and like all socialist idologies it is fundamentally anti-capitalist.

You’re right that the Nordic model isn’t socialist, though. It’s a blend of social democracy and corporatism.

kenbw2 ,

Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries.

Except that isn’t true

nrezcm ,

How is it not true? Per capital they are lower but that doesn’t mean much when you have over a billion people. I think a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful awful climate impacts.

kenbw2 ,

It’s a bit disingenuous to blame a country for having high emissions when it has 10x the number of people

That means it needs 10x the amount of electricity, vehicle fuel etc.

By the same logic, the Vatican City is a world leader in climate policy.

Should we start comparing China with the Americas and Europe combined? Because that’s a more like-for-like comparison

nrezcm ,

Which is why I said a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful climate impact. Diluting their impact behind a per capita graph is misleading. Also out of all my travels in the world China has been the only country I could visibly see that impact without having traveled to it or even being super close. The morning chemical smog I’d see in Korea on a regular basis compares to nothing else I’ve seen and I’ve lived in some pretty dirty regions.

ramenbellic ,

China manages to be the manufacturing hub of the world AND have a lower carbon footprint per capita than the United States. We don’t have time to keep pointing fingers and making excuses, we need to be making changes.

foo ,

China isn’t socialist by any academic definition.

AllonzeeLV , (edited )

The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.

I’ve come to accept that there isn’t hope to stop the runaway train of unchecked capitalist greed, at least not without the hard lesson of collapse and rebuild, and that means there will be apologists like you screaming that the ship (Our habitable world) isn’t sinking as you’re waist deep in ocean(city destroying weather events, crop failures, heat deaths, fresh water crises, etc).

That used to bother me, but I’ve come to appreciate you as the comedy relief you are in this tragedy. So by all means, keep crowing about how competition between humans in matters of life and death are “healthy” and how the capital markets will save us from the capital markets that don’t care about any future that is more than a fiscal quarter out, and will do anything they can get away with against the species for an extra nickel for shareholders.

I’m sure the benevolence of the sliver of the population that came to own almost everything through Extensive, merciless exploitation and sociopathy “rational self-interest” will swoop in to save you and your loved ones for your devotion.

kava ,

Nobody is willing to tolerate a drop in quality of life for the climate. Third worlders like the Chinese have finally gotten a taste for a little meat with supper and they aren’t going to give it up so easily.

I don’t even think this is inherently capitalist. It’s a human issue. Obviously capitalism messes up incentives - so companies like ExxonMobil will deliberately lie about emissions or what have you and create PR campaigns to influence people into more carbon emissions.

So capitalism definitely makes it worse in that regard - but the ultimate cause of this is 8 trillion humans who want access to smartphones, cars, globalized consumer products, laptops, A/C, etc

The only real way to reduce carbon emissions to a point it won’t inevitably fuck up the planet is not to have humans exist in a large scale industrial society. Go ahead and campaign on that as a politician. It ain’t happening. We’re burning this bitch to the ground.

For what it’s worth, it’ll take a couple of centuries before we really start to feel the effects in full. Sure, a few unusual heatwaves here and there seem serious but it’s nothing like what’s coming.

whatisallthis ,

The one thing that makes me feel better is that all those greedy billionaires will also be dead.

Dlayknee ,

So how screwed are we? Obviously this isn’t good, but I don’t think it’s going to stop here - and at least in the US it doesn’t seem like the political landscape is going to change any time soon. So is this bad enough for people to start having to do something like move away from the equator? Or are we approaching a legit “move to Mars” scenario?

Chefdano3 ,
@Chefdano3@lemm.ee avatar

Move to Mars? I doubt that’s likely. If we can’t unfuck our own mostly functional atmosphere, what makes you think we can fix Mars’s

AllonzeeLV ,

I mean, to be fair, at this point humanity can claim extensive experience in the area of planet scale terraforming.

We’re doing it as we speak!

subignition ,
@subignition@kbin.social avatar

That's resumé energy for sure

I_Miss_Daniel ,
@I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social avatar

Total Recall said so :)

AllonzeeLV , (edited )

Greed going from a well understood vice and personal failing to an aspirational core value for developed nations caused this. Society has yet to even begin to reject the message of the oligarch class to consume and produce value for them and their unquenchable greed. Unsustainable expectations of infinite economic growth/metastasis on a finite world is absolutely insane and how we got here.

There is no hope for humanity short or medium term. The only faint long term hope is that whatever amount of humanity that survives the self-inflicted greed-pocalypse actually learns that driving/incentivizing competition between humans will lead to disaster, and that we must share, cooperate, and consider the consequences of our actions for our species. The global economy chose “die alone” over “live together.” The endgame of which being those luxury bunker compounds capitalism’s few winners have been building in temperate areas to die alone of old age inside to spare themselves of the consequences of their actions on everyone else, you and I who will have to learn to subsist in the new normal climate, or die by its hands.

Jubilant, shameless capitalistic selfishness as a core value is how we got here. If we refuse to learn that lesson even after we start dropping like flies from heat, crop failures, and lack of fresh water for decades, then our extinction will be well deserved.

darth_helmet ,

Change latitude, change altitude, save up for an off-grid power system, maybe learn a few things about living off the grid in general. I don’t think we could make earth less habitable than mars if we tried, but we are pushing it toward not being to support as much life as it does right now.

burningquestion ,

There are US states where insurance companies are refusing to offer new home insurance plans and are dropping customers who have spent six figures and more making their homes more resilient to the new climate environment.

If you want to slightly recast that, there are now US states where it’s not economically viable to extend basic services that are generally considered necessary to live in an area.

killernova ,

We are completely screwed. One reason nobody in positions of power are doing anything is because they know this, and also money. All these green initiatives are simply another handout or money grab until the end. Not that we shouldn’t try or stop inventing new technology, but we must keep our expectations in line with reality as well.

To answer your questions though, yeah, in our final years, humanity will be split between the North and South poles. Areas around the equator will be too hot to sustain human life. I wonder what our communication would look like then, being unable to physically travel between poles.

Anyway, this endgame scenario is probably a bit past our lifetimes now, but not by much. We will get to see the beginning of the end, so to speak, probably around 2030s-2050s climate change will become extreme enough for it to be undeniable to the masses. Expect mass deaths from famine, disease, heat, drought, extreme weather, inability to grow food, etc., the usual, but worldwide.

You can escape it for a while but eventually the entire planet will become hostile to most life as we know it. Maybe some microbes will be able to survive but not much else in the way of more complex lifeforms.

emergencyfood ,

in our final years, humanity will be split between the North and South poles.

It isn’t as simple as that. Some models suggest that the Sahara will green and be human inhabitable. Similarly, many models have habitable islands in Central America, South and Southeast Asia, etc. On the other hand, many polar regions (in particular the Atlantic coast of Europe) may actually become too cold (or too variable) for humans.

killernova ,

Yes, I’m saying after that, literally in our final years, at the bitter end, even if we live long enough to see our sun begin to die and expand, the poles will be the only habital places on earth for a fleeting moment until we’re finally extinguished.

doppelgangmember ,

Expect El niña to kick in right as Facsi… I mean Republicans take office causing a cooling affect that they’ll tote as “see!” evidence.

derf82 ,

Moving past tipping points. With permafrost melting, sea ice melting and not reforming, and fires in the boreal forest, the feedback loop is developing. We are going to blow past 2 degrees C way faster than anyone predicted.

alvvayson ,

Honestly, anyone paying attention saw this coming since 2010.

We had twenty years to avoid this: by massively switching to nuclear power in the 90s and 00s.

We missed that exit ramp. By 2010 it was clear that 2 degrees was unavoidable.

The choice now is, do we limit it to 2-3 degrees warming, or do we go straight to 4-5 degrees?

It will take at least two decades to transform our industrial world economy.

tissek ,
@tissek@ttrpg.network avatar

4-5 degrees? You are optimistic. I bet I get to see 3 degrees in my lifetime as we will blast by each and every exit ramps. Not only that we’ll also be drifting on the highway, because it looks cool.

soEZ ,

The question on my mind is at what temp will global economy and our current civilization start to implode, as at that point we will probably stop emmiting as people, cities and possibly states literally die off…and than will probably be the new norm…

matlag ,

Looks like it’s happening already. Natural disasters are on the rise, costing billions, insurance companies start bailing out of some area. I was also wondering if international help would come back every year to address a fraction of the wildfire in Canada, Spain, Italy, Greece, and soon pretty much everywhere.

Pretty sure the cost of the disaster is soon going to be unbearable and we’ll start abandoning places and infrastructures instead of rebuilding (not officially, of course, we’ll just “push back until conditions allow to rebuild” and forget about it as more disasters will occur).

It will be a slow death, though.

Cabrio ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/02ae2f1d-a248-445c-83d2-d28ee85e7c92.jpeg

c0mbatbag3l ,
@c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world avatar

It would take that long for developed nations, there are countries that are still in their industrial revolution and that’s not even counting the ones that actively oppose this kind of thing like Russia and China.

Kinglink , (edited )

“Nuclear power scares me”

Welcome to the result. It’s sad, because nuclear power was the way, but instead we propegandized against it and continued to use it as a boogie man.

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily, ignoring there’s over 400 nuclear power reactors that are still active, 93 in America… But no… “Chernobyl” and the discussion ends.

Also Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors … nah can’t consider things have changed since then.

Now we have people using another nuclear plant in Ukraine as an example, and again the fear rises. They’re trying to weaponize the plant, but somehow it’s “Nuclear power” and not the fact some fuckheads are planning to destroy it in a destructive fashion that’s the problem.

Somehow dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

mierdabird ,

Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors … nah can’t consider things have changed since then.

Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

Kinglink ,

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

And in ten years… it’ll be too long to add nuclear … And in ten years it’ll.

Solar and wind works in some places, it doesn’t work in all places, and the goal is to start moving away from Coal and Natural gas, it’s a long process no matter which way you go, but starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn’t a bad thing.

“It’s too late” has also been a refrain about Nuclear, but hey, in 2010 if people started to go nuclear, we’d have that capacity today, instead it was too late then, and we can only go solar and Wind… and we’re still lacking.

mierdabird ,

starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn’t a bad thing.

Unfortunately this is only true if the money tied up building a reactor for 10 years doesn’t take away from the budget for wind and solar projects. If it isn’t then you’re literally stealing clean energy from the present to hopefully get roughly 1/4 that rate of power production in a decade

Kinglink ,

The problem is that Solar and Wind doesn’t work as a viable solution everywhere, so if the choice is between do nothing or start nuclear, you go nuclear.

Instead America has done neither and waited as have many countries.

If Solar and wind can work, and they are as fast as you say, of course you go wind and solar, the problem is that’s not the case in many places.

schroedingershat ,

Where?

Show the data.

What place on earth is nuclear more viable than renewables?

No vague gesturing. Hard numbers.

CantSt0pPoppin ,
@CantSt0pPoppin@lemmy.world avatar

I am not here to argue with you or to persuade you to change your opinion. I am only here to provide you with some information and facts that you may find useful or interesting.

You are right that solar and wind energy may not be viable solutions everywhere, depending on the availability of resources, the cost of installation and maintenance, the environmental impacts, and the social acceptance.

However, there are also many challenges and risks associated with nuclear energy, such as the disposal of radioactive waste, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the safety of nuclear power plants and fusion devices, and the potential for environmental contamination and human health hazards in case of accidents or mishandling.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources accounted for about 20% of U.S. electricity generation in 2020, while nuclear energy accounted for about 19%. Solar and wind energy grew at the fastest rate in U.S. history in 2020, while nuclear energy remained relatively stable³. Some studies have suggested that it is possible to supply about 75-80% of U.S. electricity needs with solar and wind energy, if the system were designed with excess capacity and storage⁴.

Nuclear energy is not a renewable source of energy, as uranium is a finite resource that will eventually run out. Moreover, nuclear energy is not carbon-free, as the process of mining, refining, and preparing uranium emits greenhouse gases. Nuclear waste is also a major environmental problem that has no permanent solution yet.

I hope this information helps you to understand some of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy compared to solar and wind energy. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to share them with me. 😊

(1) The Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy - Physics | ScienceBriefss.com. sciencebriefss.com/…/the-disadvantages-of-nuclear….

(2) Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy. energy.gov/…/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-en….

(3) Advantages Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy - NRC. www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0813/ML081350295.pdf.

(4) Various Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy. conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_NuclearE….

(5) U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics … www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896.

(6) Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States. theguardian.com/…/study-wind-and-solar-can-power-….

(7) Pros And Cons of Nuclear Energy | EnergySage. energysage.com/…/pros-and-cons-nuclear-energy/.

(8) Nuclear energy: what it is and its advantages and disadvantages. www.endesa.com/en/the-e-face/…/nuclear-power.

(9) Renewable Energy | Department of Energy. www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy. (10) U.S. renewable energy use nearly quadrupled in past decade, report … washingtonpost.com/…/renewable-energy-solar-wind-….

(11) Wind and solar power producing record amount of U.S. electricity. www.usatoday.com/story/tech/…/9353259002/.

foo ,

Solar wind thermal energy works almost everywhere that humans thrive and it’s cheap

Arsenal4ever ,

The comments are full of nuclear bros who think nuclear is the answer. Something about sun and wind not working everywhere.

schroedingershat ,

The best time to ignore the nuclear industry scammers and spend the money on renewables instead for 10x the return in clean energy was 1942.

The second best time is now.

beta_particle ,

Idiot.

alvvayson ,

It’s people like you who present a false dichotomy that are the really evil people in the world today.

We can do solar, wind and nuclear. One does not preclude the other, contrary to your false dichotomy.

In fact, we must build out a minimum level of nuclear - it is the only mandatory technology required to stop climate change, because it works 24/7.

We can add as much solar and wind to the system as we would like, as long as the grid can handle it.

Grids with a lot of hydro will not require much nuclear, e.g. Iceland can do entirely without it and Sweden only needs a small amount. Grids with little hydro will need a lot of nuclear, like France.

This was true in 1990. It is still true today and it will still be true in 2050.

mierdabird ,

Budgets are a real thing. If you tie up $28.5 billion constructing say, the Vogtle #3 and #4 reactors, you are taking away significant amounts of money that could have already produced working wind and solar installations that would produce far more power. Stating that reality doesn’t make me “evil,” get a grip.

Additionally, with upgrades in high voltage transmission lines and grid-level storage systems the need for nuclear or fossil fuel baseload in the future is going to be far less than you expect

alvvayson ,

Obviously, regulations must be changed to make nuclear affordable.

But yes, misguided people like you and those who opposed nuclear in the 90s are causing a mass extinction even that is gearing up to become the biggest in the history of the planet.

If that isn’t evil, then I don’t know what the term evil means anymore.

matlag ,

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

It’s better to do both!!

Nuclear is not more expensive than solar and wind. And today’s paradox is solar and wind are cheap because oil is cheap…

Besides, comparing the 2 is totally misleading. One is a controllable source of electricity, the other is by nature an unstable source, therefore you need a backup source. Most of the time, that backup is a gas plant (more fossil fuel…), and some other time it’s mega-batteries projects that need tons of lithium… that we also wanted for our phones, cars, trucks etc. Right now, every sector is accounting lithium resources as if they were the only sector that will use it…

And then you have Germany, that shut down all its nuclear reactor, in favor of burning coal, with a “plan” to replace the coal with gas, but “one day”, they’ll replace that gas with “clean hydrogen” and suddenly have clean energy.

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

So we’ll have very very exactly the same conversation 10 years from now, when we’ll be 100% renewable but we’ll have very frequent power outages. People will say “we don’t have time to build nuclear power plan, we need to do «clean gas/hydrogen/other wishful thing to burn»”. And at that time, someone will mention that we will never produce enough of these clean fuel but … How many times do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot??

I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

In the years to come, we’re going to lose much more land just because it won’t be suitable for human survival, and that will be on a longer scale than a nuclear disaster. Eliminating fossil fuel should be the sole absolute priority, and nuclear is one tool to achieve it.

burningquestion , (edited )

Yeah, but the only way you could weaponize a solar panel is to drop it on someone. You can’t just misconfigure a solar array and render the entire area unlivable.

Like, what part about “if this power plant falls into the wrong hands it could be turned into a weapon of mass destruction” sounds even remotely acceptable as a trade-off when cheaper and vastly safer alternative techs are available?

I think we need to accept that we don’t have the technology to sustainably deliver as much energy as the capitalist economic system now demands and will demand in the future. We are, in fact, going to have to figure out an economic system that can meet our needs without ever-spiraling energy requirements.

There are other issues, too. France is dealing with issues with their nuclear plants because they designed them around the idea that river water would always be cheap and abundant. They’ve had to start shutting down nuclear reactors in summer when water levels get too low, and they expect this issue to get worse over time. They are planning new reactors around the new environment, but I just don’t see how we can effectively plan nuclear infrastructure in an environment of global climate change and reduced security. Conflicts like in Ukraine aren’t going to become less common over time.

partizan ,

Actually we can make nuclear molten salt reactors (working small scale stuff exist for long decades). Since the medium is liquid, it has much better utilization of the fuel, there is no pressurized radioactive water reservoirs (which is the actual issue with current reactors), to stop the reaction, you drain the fuel circulation into a container and you are done, no need to supply water to prevent criticality.

But since those molten salt reactors could not be used to create plutonium for weapons, the current reactor design was chosen during cold war era.

They have some drawbacks, like slow startup times, but the cons it provide are incredible.

burningquestion ,

Yeah, but we don’t just need technological solutions that can crank out the requisite energy, we need technological solutions that aren’t going to facilitate nuclear proliferation even more than has already occurred. The United States right now is in an insane position vis a vis Pakistan because even though Pakistan shelters the US’s enemies and is effectively a passive-aggressively hostile power, it would be worse for the US (and the world) if the current Pakistani state just collapsed. It’s a nuclear power, after all. What happens if, in the chaos, ISIS affiliates get their hands on Pakistani nukes? Or, I dunno, the Taliban? Or they disappear onto the international market and two years later the Sinaloa cartel proudly announces it’s the world’s latest nuclear power? That’s the calculus with nuclear proliferation.

This is such a drastic risk the US can’t bring itself to do anything about the people who sheltered Bin Laden and the Taliban during the Afghanistan War because that’s a lesser evil than running the risk of losing control of the nukes. Nuclear proliferation is a big deal.

schroedingershat ,

MSRs and LFRs are horribly unreliable and don’t last. There hasn’t even been a successful demo reactor and the technical issues for running one safely at full power long term don’t even have proposed half-solutions.

partizan ,

There are a few testing facilities like chinas en.wikipedia.org/…/China_Experimental_Fast_Reacto… and it was already tested and producing power. And they are planning to start a functional plant connected to the grid en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR-600

So it seems much more than a half-solution…

schroedingershat ,

You’ve now swapped from molten salt reactors to sodium cooled ones while pretending they’re the same thing.

CFR has also never run without using U235 as its main fuel source.

Mind-boggling stupidity as always.

partizan ,

Sodium is in a molten salt form in those reactors…

Kinglink ,

cheaper and vastly safer alternative techs are available?

That’s the problem “cheaper and vastly safer” alternatives AREN’T always available. People continue to talk up Solar, and Wind, but they’re not viable for a majority of users of coal and natural gas plants. To produce the power that Nuclear does in square mile of land, you need 50 square miles of solar at least, and over 360 square miles for Wind. And that’s also saying you need viable places, because Wind turbines can’t just be thrown up anywhere, nor can solar.

Coal and Natural gas is more efficient by a factor of at least 10 in land space.

If you’re in the middle of nowhere, that’s viable, if you live in a big city, that’s going to become a problem quickly.

burningquestion , (edited )

Yeah, but since there are no moving parts and no emissions, you can site solar panels in places you could never site a nuclear power plant. You can even put them on farms, which is actually of interest to farmers now since climate change means many farms are dealing with excess heat stress and water retention issues in their soil. Revenue-generating shade devices that protect their yields are of interest to farmers. There are a million ways you can creatively use wind and solar technologies because they’re not just inherently extremely harmful and dangerous.

Cf. agrisolar.

Go ahead and put a nuclear power plant anywhere and continue to use that land for anything else. Or cover a city’s rooftops in nuclear reactors. Go right ahead, I’m sure nobody will have anything to say about that.

Your argument sounds great as long as we forget literally all of the specific characteristics of all of these technologies that differentiate them other than power output. Only thinking about power output is why we’re dealing with a 10-dimensional stack of environmental problems only the largest of which is climate change.

EDIT Made some tweaks after posting sorry if you were replying.

schroedingershat ,

Inkai uranium mine produces about 40W/m^2 in fuel for the actively leeched land where everything is killed by the sulfuric acid and vehicle movement.

If you include the 15km buffer where you can’t live or eat anything it’s about 20W/m^2

Solar averages 20-50W/m^2 with current tech.

Rooftop solar uses no land. Agrivoltaics can have negative land use (adding the solar reduces the amount of land needed for the crops under it). Roughly 30m^2 of roof + 30m^s of facade or wall is sufficient for the average high income country european’s final energy use.

Solar uses a strict subset of the materials needed for a nuclear plant, so land use from the uranium mining is in addition to construction.

Like every pro-nuke lie, your land use pearl clutching is the oppksite of the truth.

CantSt0pPoppin ,
@CantSt0pPoppin@lemmy.world avatar

The statement that “cheaper and vastly safer alternative techs are NOT always available” is not accurate. Solar and wind energy are becoming more viable as technology improves, and the land requirements for these technologies are not as significant as they once were. In addition, coal and natural gas are not as safe as they are often made out to be. Coal mining is a dangerous occupation, and coal-fired power plants can release harmful pollutants into the air. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel, and its combustion releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The cost of coal and natural gas is likely to increase in the future, as the world’s reserves of these resources dwindle. The environmental impacts of coal and natural gas are also becoming increasingly well-known, and public pressure is growing for a transition to cleaner energy sources. The development of new technologies, such as battery storage and smart grids, is making it easier to integrate renewable energy sources into the electricity grid.

In conclusion, there are a number of reasons to believe that cheaper and vastly safer alternative technologies to coal and natural gas are becoming more available. These technologies offer a number of advantages over traditional fossil fuels, and they are likely to play an increasingly important role in the global energy mix in the years to come.

matlag ,

Theyve had to start shutting down nuclear reactors in summer when water levels get too low,

This is a fake news. Period.

Some reactors had to REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT because otherwise they would exceed the temperature increase they’re allowed to cause in the river, this to preserve life in the river. No reactor was shutdown because of a low water stream.

What happened last year is a systematic defect was found in an external protection layer, and the decision was made to fix all the reactors having the same potential defect at once. The work took longer than expected, and that caused France having very limited capacity for months, causing worries about power outage.

Not to say it could never happen in the future, but it didn’t yet.

burningquestion , (edited )

Thanks for clarifying, but I mean, that hardly seems any better. Why does it matter if the temps “only” got too hot for life in the river and they reduced output to avoid environmental damage? Do you mean to imply stripping that environmental regulation and letting them kill off life in the river with overheated wastewater would be an acceptable tradeoff if temperatures got too hot for too long?

matlag ,

No, I don’t mean to destroy life in the river. I mean to highlight the difference of impact between going from 90% of your capacity to 0% in one information to reducing from 90% to 80% or even 70%. Shutting down a nuclear reactor is quite a big deal in terms of operations. Restarting it is not like turning back on a switch either. Claiming a reactor was shut down makes it sound like a much bigger deal than what it was.

AllonzeeLV , (edited )

The answer has been clear. The wealthy that cause this will continue to rape the planet for short term profit to feed their insatiable greed machine, the peasants who will suffer the most who could destroy the global oligarch class in a day will continue to labor for them in exchange for minimal subsistence until we die of climate change induced natural disasters, heat stroke, or starvation, and the global oligarchs will flee to the luxury bunker complexes they’ve been building to continue to live like modern Pharoahs, protected from the destruction they wrought.

Humanity chose greed and greed worship, because humans would rather daydream about becoming the greedy fuckers and living in the decadence and gluttony of their masters, than of breaking the wheel, rejecting the owners and stripping them of their wealth/power, and working together sustainably for the future of the species.

A great many of us peasants actually resent our tax dollars going to the underpaid teachers that try to foster society’s future in the face of apathy and greed. I think you’d have to be blind to have any hope for humanity getting wise without the painful, clearly needed education of civilization’s collapse. In an age where humanity’s technology can literally destroy the world, we need to learn the hard way that actions and inaction have consequences for the species.

We can’t learn that until we’re hungry and can no longer delude ourselves into believing everything is fine by staring into a screen.

burningquestion , (edited )

I read the Fourth IPCC Assessment in 2007 and was like “wow, they have to know they’re being too conservative with their estimates”

Basically, if anyone had looked at the IPCC reports that had been produced even before 2010, it was obvious how much airbrushing and wishful thinking was going on to make it look like everything was fine. But instead of looking at the reports overall, people just wanted to read the comforting, obviously wrong even then conclusions at the very end.

If you really looked at the level of uncertainty involved in the projections, and thought about it honestly, anyone could have have realized long before 2010 that, at level best, world “leaders” were literally gambling with the future of this entire global civilization.

emergencyfood ,

They were being conservative because they didn’t want to be accused of being alarmists.

burningquestion ,

Oh, I know. But see how downplaying serious threats to civilization plays out. The IPCC 2007 report screwed the climate movement during likely its most critical period (earlier action is always better, but the late 2000’s-2010’s were sort of our last window for avoiding the really awful stuff, so in a way that was sort of the most important time to be ringing the alarm imho – at this point, we just get to respond to the out of control emergency that’s now starting to play out) because everybody could officially point to it and say “look? see? we’re fine! it’s fine! shut up!”

Climate denialism that merely comes from a CYA/institutional politics angle is still climate denialism.

derf82 ,

Sadly the inflation of the 70s followed by high interest rates froze nuclear plant building, and when it could have picked back up, Chernobyl put a final mail in the coffin.

Honestly I think the only thing that will stop it is mass death and destruction of the industrial economy.

Right now my biggest hope is a volcanic winter to give us a little reprieve.

schroedingershat ,

Switching >50% of the power to wind could have happened any time in the last 80 years for far less than any one of the various failed nuclear transitions.

Hell, the first commercial solar thermal installation was over a century ago and the first attempt to bring PV to market was george cove in 1906. One abandoned nuclear reactor worth of investment could have moved either down the economic learning curve to replace coal.

NuclearArmWrestling ,

I live in the SW US. We could probably provide power for most of the US with all the sun we get here and all the empty space without much of a hassle. The great thing is that it would likely be far less expensive than a good number of the alternatives.

Hamartiogonic ,
@Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz avatar

We’re going to need to make all the changes now. Energy production, energy usage, energy storage, transportation, manufacturing, carbon capture and so on. We’re going to need to do all of it, and we’re still in big trouble. My guess is that within the next 100 years the human population might take a dive because of climate change.

Arsenal4ever ,

I think a few scientists at Exxon Mobile predicted this in the 70’s in their worst-case scenario reports.

Eggyhead ,
@Eggyhead@kbin.social avatar

I expect it to be worse next year, and even worse the year after that.

killernova ,

What about the year after that?

doppelgangmember ,

Actually hoping this is situational to a degree bc of the

El Niño is the “hot wave” portion of the cycle. El Niña is the “cooling” portion of the cycle. Both are involced in water surgace temperatures affecting storms, hurricanes, and more. We are in El Niño currently for the new couple years so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the routinely for a couple years sadly.

Sauce… I mean source

EnderWi99in ,

Hello El Nino! I missed you.

YoBuckStopsHere ,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

Is it time to mine Halley’s Comet?

EnderWi99in ,

New episodes come out today!

YoBuckStopsHere ,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

Awwww yeah! Smells like a juicy promotion!

derf82 ,

Too bad this doesn’t actually work: what-if.xkcd.com/162/

YoBuckStopsHere ,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

I know, the actual answer is a massive volcanic explosion akin to Krakatoa in 1883 that cooled the planet by 2.2 degress Fahrenheit.

derf82 ,

Mount Tambora was even better. But sadly volcanic winters are temporary, but release a ton of CO2 and methane that just can cause later warming, not to mention acid rain from all the hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide forming sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. Maybe we need a few in a row.

ittu ,

yeah two weeks ago it pained me to leave the house cause the heat was unbearable.

shalafi ,

I live in NW FL, I’m active outdoors and quite used to the heat. I haven’t mowed my yard in over a month, it’s 3’ high. Can’t go to my camp in the swamp, my favorite thing.

My gf is from the Philippines and it’s too hot for HER.

pfannkuchen ,

In Germany it’s colder and wetter than usual while in southern Europe they’re boiling. Crazy weather.

theolodger ,

England, cold and rainy.

JJROKCZ ,

Just like the last several millennia there lol I remember the Brittons melting last year though right?

Ronno ,
@Ronno@kbin.social avatar

Yeah, same here in NL, rainy summer so far

pfannkuchen ,

Yeah the problem I have is when ppl say climate change doesn’t exist because today is moderate, meanwhile they ignore the droughts and floods elsewhere. I’m happy for our farmers and our rivers but next year could be completely different.

saplyng ,
@saplyng@kbin.social avatar

The more that climate change continues we will see more and more extremes of weather. So cold places might get colder and hot places hotter, as well as more extreme/frequent storms. It's not a super great time for the environment

VanillaGorilla ,

I'm not too mad about the colder weather. It's been too dry the last few months anyways.

soEZ ,

The weather will be more like a monkeys paw…u wish for a bit more rain…here is some floods instead…

VanillaGorilla ,

Yeah, I know. But currently I got the sweet end of the lolly.

soEZ ,

Well the big shaft of the lolly might be just around the corner, enjoy it while it lasts, I’m sure it will enjoy you when the time comes…depressing…

VanillaGorilla ,

Sure, but what else can I do? Recycle more? I'm almost vegan already, but that won't help much. So I'm enjoying the rain while it falls.

soEZ ,

Oh I don’t mean to imply you can do or have to do anything… Haha. Sorry if it came off that way. Just making depressing comments…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •