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.
🥺
deleted by creator
Ideology behind the idea is resource management as well as that 2 kids are enough in terms of quality for those kids. We can debate of the number, 3 seems also reasonable. My idea or observation is more like when you have more kids you have less money and you need to share more with those kids which means your own life quality as well as the life quality for the kids is overall reduced. Less kids means you can focus more on those kids and care more for them.
Your reference to too many kids is more a African problem, I only name this as example, in such countries your life depends on the next generations, meaning you need kids to survive when you become older. It is understandable that they produce more kids, but from the context it should be clear that I meant that this policy is mainly for cities as well as overpopulated places and not for Africans or cultures that depend on those factors. Their carbon footprint in such countries is in general lower and it plays less of an role because their children will usually not end up working in nuclear power plants, industry in general etc.
Enforcing such a policy is also slippery slope to forced sterilizations and infanticides that childbearing people may be coerced into doing.
I do not want sterilizations either but punishment in form of something by the govt should be enforced to avoid bypassing such a rule.
I think placing a focus on population control is counterproductive.
I see this as only solution. Overpopulation is a problem and it will become worse combined with upcoming disasters and the fact that because of climate change you will one way or another over the long run struggle putting food on the table. The demand is high but no new resources are created to solve it. Starts with the fact that coffee beans are dying, goes over water resources as well as climate related problems directly.
My ideology here is to improve life for everyone.
Something like a 2 child policy is a solution looking for a problem. Current projections are that most population growth has already happened. Many countries are already below replacement, and the rest will reach that point soon.
Current projection is towards 10 billion+ people.
Yup, which is exactly in line with what I said. There’s just not going to be much more population growth, so using draconian measures is unwarranted. Never implement something like that when there’s already a process that’s happening naturally that will do the same thing without the worst side effects.
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.
Who said anything about natural selection? Birth rates drop dramatically as wealth increases, women become more educated, birth control is more widespread, childhood mortality decreases, and cost to raise a child increases. This is widely documented across all countries. The best projections we have put the 10B population point at the end of the century.
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?
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.
Uranium runs out in 130 years.
So that means that we can still renew the current plants for another 50 years, right?
Mind to share the source for this number?
Also, when do fossil fuels run out?It is not only energy that is an issue, oil is used in pretty much everything that is synthetic.
Finding alternatives to other uses of oil are an orthogonal problem. Doesn’t change the fact that we need to reduce fossil-based energy production as much as possible as fast as possible.
I don’t understand how the debate has shifted so much to “nuclear VS renewable” when we still use so much fossil fuels…
I already shared the number across several topics now. Here we go again.
Fossil fuels are estimated to run out, assuming we stay on the current course by 2100 the number says 2060 but both uranium and fossils are estimates, lets simply round them positively up because we might try to reduce both of it over the long run. We all know this is positive wishful thinking but lets not just create fear and panic, I like to see such numbers more as averages that can be go lower or higher, depending on our further actions.
Fact what pro nuclear energy people forgot, and this always is that building more power plants depletes things faster and you need to store more waste forever, I say forever because 1 million years is such long time, that I doubt humans will exist until then. The logic to create more power plants because it is reliable and then swipe under the carpet that you run out faster and create more waste is beyond reasonable.
Doesn’t change the fact that we need to reduce fossil-based energy production as much as possible as fast as possible.
I agree, water to name an example does not depend on fossil fuels.
We always will use fossil fuels, point tho is that depending on uranium has biggest implications. Ethical ones, there is no solution for end storage, weaponizing it and and and. It is unpredictable and you always need to calculate our estimates based on worst case scenarios and not best case scenarios.
Thanks for the share, sorry I was not following the previous threads very carefully.
lets simply round them positively up because we might try to reduce both of it over the long run.
Well you didn’t round the uranium number up… At current consuption rates and with currently discovered reserves, uranium is estimated to run out in 127 years and fossils in 28. Adding in the many other uses of fossil fuels for which the alternatives are still to be found, it is way more urgent to get rid of the fossil-based eenergy production than the nuclear one.
We always will use fossil fuels
How will we if they will run out within one lifetime? As you say, we need to eventually get rid of both, the question is how to organise the transition. It is not absolutely necessary to shut down the nuclear production within 30 years.
point tho is that depending on uranium has biggest implications.
Depending on fossil fuel, as we do now, as biggest ecological implication though.
There are proposal and efforts to reduce uranium and fossil fuels, they are not put into consideration into this chart. New reactors are a bit more efficient and the govt already said that EVs are the way to go. So I would say max 2100. It is more realistic.
It is way more urgent to get rid of the fossil-based energy production than the nuclear one.
No, because for the waste storage you waste lots of fossil fuels, I suggest here doing some research because this is a chicken egg problem that goes hand in hand. As said you always will rely on some point onto fossils, one way or another. Point here is that you directly should think in long terms and there is only fusion energy here as solution.
How will we if they will run out within one lifetime? As you say, we need to eventually get rid of both, the question is how to organise the transition. It is not absolutely necessary to shut down the nuclear production within 30 years.
Not in my and your lifetime. Those numbers do not put EVs etc intro consideration, fact is that the gov slowly making the switch, it gives us some more time.
It is not absolutely necessary to shut down the nuclear production within 30 years.
Creating new ones that also depend on fossils and uranium does not solve anything, it only gives you some time. The uranium can also be used for other purposes than just nuclear energy, if we deplete it then we miss an opportunity to research it more. It is necessary to use the money that you gain by shuting down nuclear power plants for long term solutions and that is not nuclear. I think you do not see the big picture here, if you waste 2 trillion dollars each year for weapons and nuclear to gain time and selfish reasons or you invest that money directly in off-shore parks and fusion, well its a mathematically thing. Nuclear lose here, clearly. Because after your 30 years, lets make it just 100 you wasted trillions of dollars for a system that continues to be a financial burden, and fossil burden because the waste will always be there and you could just use that money to directly invest into wind, water, earth, sun.
New reactors are a bit more efficient and the govt already said that EVs are the way to go. So I would say max 2100. It is more realistic.
I understand that, but why not doing a similar overestimate for uranium? I recall that “uranium runs out in 130 years” was your reply to why prioritizing stopping nuclear over fossils.
That is actually an argument for stopping fossils first.No, because for the waste storage you waste lots of fossil fuels
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission is much lower for nuclear than fossil-based energy, that accounts also facility construction and waste management.
Qualitatively, it involves some fossils, quantitatively it still pollutes way less.it gives us some more time.
it only gives you some time
In both cases, it is about earning time, why do you make it a positive thing about fossil fuels?
We agree that we should eventually get rid of both, using nuclear to earn time for the transition out of fossils is a more eco-friendly strategy than the other way around.if you waste 2 trillion dollars each year for weapons and nuclear to gain time and selfish reasons or you invest that money directly in off-shore parks and fusion, well its a mathematically thing.
Mathematics are the following : are we able to provide enough renewable energy so as to give up on both nuclear and fossil energies right away? If not, the renewable surplus should be used to shut down fossil power plants. When there are none left, we can start shutting down (or stop renewing) the nuclear ones.
The talk about the years is pretty much irrelevant, I did the math with 200 years in another thread already. It does not change the underlying issue. Uranium is also harder to research than fossil fuels, since Uranium has more limits. This is just pure chemistry. Recycling for example is much much harder due to the nature of uranium.
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission is much lower for nuclear than fossil-based energy, that accounts also facility construction and waste management. Qualitatively, it involves some fossils, quantitatively it still pollutes way less.
Wind is not fossil based energy source, not sure why I need to mention it. You apparently do not see that nuclear also uses one way or another fossils too, nuclear does not replace fossil all together, also not wind, sun etc. It solves one problem but not all. No one also ever talked here about fossil based reactors or energy sources. If you want to talk about emissions, someone did the math and it does not check out.
In both cases, it is about earning time, why do you make it a positive thing about fossil fuels?
Again wind, sun is not fossil. It gives you time to create systems and networks, which is the underlying point. We had already 50+ years for transition time, we need the change now and not in 100 yeas.
: are we able to provide enough renewable energy so as to give up on both nuclear and fossil energies right away? If not, the renewable surplus should be used to shut down fossil power plants. When there are none left, we can start shutting down (or stop renewing) the nuclear ones.
Yes math checks out, use the money to build win, off-shore etc and it will work. There are only people like you that apparently support nuclear for no reason when its easily replaceable with alternatives. Point tho is that clean energy is not wanted by the industry as they make less profits once the system is constantly running because maintenance is much cheaper over the long. The studies people here linking are sponsoired often by exactly those big energy monopolies that can effort such studies to support their crazy idea to continue to use something that runs out much much faster than 200 years because for every new nuclear power plant you build you waste more resources much faster.
When there are none left, we can start shutting down (or stop renewing) the nuclear ones.
No this will be too late by then. You apparently do not understand that time here is the factor. If you continue to create new power plants you waste money for something that has limited future, alias none.
You can’t just read half a sentence and say it proves you right. “Mitigation potention is uncertain…as it depends on the reference emissions being displaced”.
I read everything and this is about emissions which is irrelevant since wind energy causes zero emissions. I already explained in depth in multiple threads now that you need combine several things across different countries, it makes no sense to use water energy in africa. That is just common sense.
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.
It can never be a part of the solution, explained now multiple times, uranium is limited the more plants you build the faster you deplete the resource, forever I want to add here.
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’s just a footnote of the chart and it actually goes against your argument.
The context of you linked document are emissions not nuclear power plants. The word nuclear in fact only occurs twice or three times, which shows you did not read it. My context is resources not emissions. You just bring a random document forward b the energy industry that want continue to deplete resources to maximize their profits. Clean energy like fusion is much cheaper and the resources for that will not run out in next 100k years even with society growing and demanding more energy.
This is the figure they refer to if you somehow managed to skip the arguably most important page of the SPM…
This figure not mentioned waste, and the depleting process that speedup when you build more power plants. You switch problems that is all. You lose.
You cannot take this chart serious because left the important parts out, creating more plants creates more waste, depletes more uranium much faster besides you still need fossil fuels for synthetic stuff anyway.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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
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.
i share the video not to convince you, but to hear your points countering its arguments.
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.
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
lul
to quote you …
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.
- 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
I agree to everything you just said. It appears like someone else already discussed what I said in a comment thread below, so I apologize for bringing it up again.
EDIT: What I meant by agreeing with you was that I agree that climate change will not be solved with nuclear or renewables alone. I did not mean that using nuclear energy and renewable energy does not have any effect on solving climate change.
Climate change will not be solved with nuclear.
Won’t be solved by discarding what amounts to 20% of the global electricity budget either.
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.
