I’m 42 and I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t obvious that we needed to phase out fossil fuels. Global warming was already known. The 70’s oil crises had even convinced conservative politicians that “energy independence” was an important goal even if they couldn’t grasp the concept of an energy transition. The Exxon Valdez spill happened when I was in elementary school. (We did a “science experiment” where we put canola oil and water in containers and used different materials to remove the oil.)
Fossil fuels have been obviously awful for at least 5 decades. Imagine how much less CO2 would be in the air if in 1985, we got on the good timeline instead of the “Biff becomes president” timeline.
I live below sea level and have a degree in economics. I have definitely considered the fact that I’m paying for the negative externalities of fossil fuels each time my flood insurance rates go up.
For the record, my house is raised above sea level and I have solar panels. No one has to chime in with “just move” overly simplistic arguments. We’re better prepared than most Americans since we already deal with it.
Then we’d be doing fission. Fossil fuels aren’t required to pay for their externalities the way nuclear is, not to mention that the fossil companies have spent decades lobbying and campaigning to keep from having to be responsible for their own bullshit, as well as campaigning to make other forms of energy seem / be less viable (either through PR messaging or regulatory capture).
Nuclear fission is not paying for the biggest externality either, its waste products. That for some reason seems to be the people’s problem. And even then there doesn’t exist a permanent storage solution for it as of today anywhere on the planet (yes, I know Finland thinks they have it figured out next year, but at a capacity of 5500t it will only hold the waste of the 5 Finnish reactors). It’s absolute insanity to me how this gets brushed away so easily.
The problem with that is that the subduction rifts generally also have volcanoes that spew a bunch of that material back to the surface/atmosphere. It might take a few centuries for it to go through all that, but IMO better to bury it in one place and risk future people not understanding it (they’ll figure it out quickly enough if they are human or similar intelligence) than to put it somewhere where the Earth itself will eventually reject it violently and people affected won’t have much choice or understanding of what happens as a result.
In the alternative universe we’d have been building fission power for decades when it was cheaper than renewables, and it would still be running today.
We were talking about power strategies from the 1980s and the person above said it would just be the “cheapest”. If countries really were just building the cheapest, it would not have been renewables back then.
I guess. If we’re in this hypothetical alternative universe then those plants built in the 80’s would be at the end of their lives and we’d be looking to spend a fortune to replace them with new nuclear or we’d be saving money by building renewables.
I’m still not sure what this line if discussion is accomplishing though.
Probably nothing - though I do think it’s worth remembering that renewables were much more expensive in the past than they are now. It’s one reason why government action has been so slow - other reasons apply to nuclear power. I think people who are switched on to the crisis are all too aware that renewables are now easily the best source of power, but forget too easily that it was only through significant investment that we’ve ended up here.
Maybe cheaper than renewables and grid scale batteries over the lifetime of the reactor. Perhaps you could correct me, but my understanding is that grid scale battery facilities don’t even exist yet. Given the current state of battery technology, you’d need to replace the batteries at that facility in, what, seven years? Ten is really pushing it, right? That’s not going to be cheap.
Grid scale batteries for solar day/night cycles can work. There is no good solution for seasonal fluctuations. Of course, a very large part of Earth’s population lives in close proximity to the equator with far less seasonal influences. It’s just unfortunate that those that pollute most (per capita) do not.
Wind works great at higher latitudes but what we need to be looking at is high voltage DC lines to transfer power over long distances with minimal loss.
I know people who say that global warming is a conspiracy to not let the developing countries develop. Everyone will try to use what’s cheaper while we’re considering money to be the biggest deal
Funneling subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel to sustainable energy sources. In the Netherlands alone, the around 40 billion euros are spent by the government each year directly or indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel.
Kerosine airplane fuel is untaxed for example, while consumer car fuel comes with a 20% (ish) tax.
Subsidies don’t actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it.
It’s not just about price for the individual. It’s about economic expansion.
Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please.
Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable.
For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the ‘market price’ for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us
Let’s go even further back. We had a lot of environmental activism in the 1970s. We got the clean air act, the clean water act, started recycling efforts for at least bottles and cans, and paper. Solar panels were a hot topic and President Carter installed some at the White House. My parents were part of a trend toward all electric houses fed by nuclear (what a disaster that was). Cars got a lot more efficient.
We had a great start. Then Carter lost his second term, and Republicans went ham on our future
Only under Democrats. It is hamstrung, bypassed and suffocated under Republicans, just like the EPA. When conservatives have power, regulation becomes a weapon for them. There is no regulation a conservative will not pervert for their own benefit.
Nothing good in history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
I’m 42 and I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t obvious that we needed to phase out fossil fuels. Global warming was already known. The 70’s oil crises had even convinced conservative politicians that “energy independence” was an important goal even if they couldn’t grasp the concept of an energy transition. The Exxon Valdez spill happened when I was in elementary school. (We did a “science experiment” where we put canola oil and water in containers and used different materials to remove the oil.)
Fossil fuels have been obviously awful for at least 5 decades. Imagine how much less CO2 would be in the air if in 1985, we got on the good timeline instead of the “Biff becomes president” timeline.
Have you ever considered that first world nations are just going to use whatever energy source is the cheapest until it is no longer the cheapest?
I live below sea level and have a degree in economics. I have definitely considered the fact that I’m paying for the negative externalities of fossil fuels each time my flood insurance rates go up.
For the record, my house is raised above sea level and I have solar panels. No one has to chime in with “just move” overly simplistic arguments. We’re better prepared than most Americans since we already deal with it.
Fucking mermaids on Lemmy now smh
Poor unfortunate souls.
That’s not possible, nobody could be better prepared than Best Countrytm!
Then we’d be doing fission. Fossil fuels aren’t required to pay for their externalities the way nuclear is, not to mention that the fossil companies have spent decades lobbying and campaigning to keep from having to be responsible for their own bullshit, as well as campaigning to make other forms of energy seem / be less viable (either through PR messaging or regulatory capture).
Nuclear fission is not paying for the biggest externality either, its waste products. That for some reason seems to be the people’s problem. And even then there doesn’t exist a permanent storage solution for it as of today anywhere on the planet (yes, I know Finland thinks they have it figured out next year, but at a capacity of 5500t it will only hold the waste of the 5 Finnish reactors). It’s absolute insanity to me how this gets brushed away so easily.
Should just bury this shit in a subduction rift and let the earth eat it
And that’s how you get Godzilla.
The problem with that is that the subduction rifts generally also have volcanoes that spew a bunch of that material back to the surface/atmosphere. It might take a few centuries for it to go through all that, but IMO better to bury it in one place and risk future people not understanding it (they’ll figure it out quickly enough if they are human or similar intelligence) than to put it somewhere where the Earth itself will eventually reject it violently and people affected won’t have much choice or understanding of what happens as a result.
Usually but not always.
Are you saying that nuclear is cheaper than renewables?
In the alternative universe we’d have been building fission power for decades when it was cheaper than renewables, and it would still be running today.
In this universe we didn’t though, I’m not sure why the multiverse is relevant here.
We were talking about power strategies from the 1980s and the person above said it would just be the “cheapest”. If countries really were just building the cheapest, it would not have been renewables back then.
We were already talking about a counterfactual.
I guess. If we’re in this hypothetical alternative universe then those plants built in the 80’s would be at the end of their lives and we’d be looking to spend a fortune to replace them with new nuclear or we’d be saving money by building renewables.
I’m still not sure what this line if discussion is accomplishing though.
Probably nothing - though I do think it’s worth remembering that renewables were much more expensive in the past than they are now. It’s one reason why government action has been so slow - other reasons apply to nuclear power. I think people who are switched on to the crisis are all too aware that renewables are now easily the best source of power, but forget too easily that it was only through significant investment that we’ve ended up here.
Maybe cheaper than renewables and grid scale batteries over the lifetime of the reactor. Perhaps you could correct me, but my understanding is that grid scale battery facilities don’t even exist yet. Given the current state of battery technology, you’d need to replace the batteries at that facility in, what, seven years? Ten is really pushing it, right? That’s not going to be cheap.
Nuclear is 2-4 times more expensive and grid scale batteries (the most costly way of storing power) are already being used.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/?sh=32681a7e5971
Grid scale batteries for solar day/night cycles can work. There is no good solution for seasonal fluctuations. Of course, a very large part of Earth’s population lives in close proximity to the equator with far less seasonal influences. It’s just unfortunate that those that pollute most (per capita) do not.
Wind works great at higher latitudes but what we need to be looking at is high voltage DC lines to transfer power over long distances with minimal loss.
Why DC? The whole advantage of AC was efficient transmission! (And AC motors)
Or you could take a page from the Soviet energy strategy and build a bunch of pumped storage plants or their equivalents, no batteries required.
I know people who say that global warming is a conspiracy to not let the developing countries develop. Everyone will try to use what’s cheaper while we’re considering money to be the biggest deal
They can make energy sources cheaper or more expensive and even do so.
How?
Funneling subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel to sustainable energy sources. In the Netherlands alone, the around 40 billion euros are spent by the government each year directly or indirectly subsidizing fossil fuel.
Kerosine airplane fuel is untaxed for example, while consumer car fuel comes with a 20% (ish) tax.
Subsidies don’t actually make something cheaper, it just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
Taxing fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer the cheapest option is a nation shooting itself in the foot, which is why none of them do it.
It’s not just about price for the individual. It’s about economic expansion.
Sure it shifts the burden to the taxpayer and I would like my tax money to be spent on other things please.
Companies aren’t going to change their policies voluntarily, it’s up to governments to make better decisions with my money and make other options more viable.
It’s not just companies though. It’s states.
Militaries, for example, would not be able to improve as quickly if we forewent the cheapest energy sources or made them artificially expensive.
Charging them for the negative externalities. Like coal kills way more people than nuclear but there’s no tax on coal plants for the harm caused.
Then you’re artificially increasing the cost of the fuel.
It’s still going to be absolutely cheaper than alternatives.
Putting a tax on externalities isn’t artificially increasing the cost of the fuel. It’s fixing a market failure.
I’m sorry, what?
Pollution has a cost to society. Someone has to pay for it. Putting that cost on the polluter is the most efficient way to handle it.
For example, a business routinely dumps its toxic waste into a watershed, polluting that watershed and imposing huge costs on all the other users of the watershed that require non-toxic water. As this lowers the ‘market price’ for the goods produced by the business, the incentive is to always do this rather than pay the cost of safely processing the toxic waste. See for example the massive PFA problems. Here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us
Allowing fossil fuels to not pay their use costs is artificially decreasing the cost.
I totally agree, but nations won’t understand that because they are modern-day fiefdoms.
Their main purpose is to support their ruling class. Funnel as much money as quickly as possible.
Let’s go even further back. We had a lot of environmental activism in the 1970s. We got the clean air act, the clean water act, started recycling efforts for at least bottles and cans, and paper. Solar panels were a hot topic and President Carter installed some at the White House. My parents were part of a trend toward all electric houses fed by nuclear (what a disaster that was). Cars got a lot more efficient.
We had a great start. Then Carter lost his second term, and Republicans went ham on our future
Thank Nixon for the epa
Leave it to conservatives to destroy the planet by inventing fake regulators they can control.
Clean water act actually helped.
Only under Democrats. It is hamstrung, bypassed and suffocated under Republicans, just like the EPA. When conservatives have power, regulation becomes a weapon for them. There is no regulation a conservative will not pervert for their own benefit.
Nothing good in history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Dude if Bush jr didn’t steal the elections backed up by the republican supreme court, we’d have Mr Fusion in every device