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.

🥺

  • CHEF-KOCHOP
    12·
    3 years ago

    That would be true if it was possible to work with only renewable, which it is not yet. Again, Germany raised its gas importations because its renewables were not enough…

    Germany does not represent entire world, we would not have the problem if we invested fast enough into renewables, instead we continue to support nuclear, Uk also build new ones, announced today. You can go green without any problem, it depends on infrastructure, and this is germanys major problem. My energy provider btw is 100 percent green. So it is possible.

    Building a new nuclear plant whose life will end before we run out of fuel is not a waste of money.

    It is because you still need to continue to invest money into it to maintain the waste. Something no new chart mention except - put into consideration. Who can put this into account, absolute no one, it is pure guessing, we talking here about thousands of years.

    Right, you make predictions on the future based on what you know about the past and present, that’s how science works.

    Sure but this can not be used as proof to support nuclear, especially not in the big picture when resources running 10 times faster out once you build 10 times more plants, unbeatable logic, simple but true.

    Of course, as soon as fusion is available, we should use that instead of fission. Who ever said the contrary?

    No, but you speedup the research and development if you pump in more money. The money that is wasted for nuclear as some countries continue to build new plants.

    It is about gaining time because renewables don’t grow quickly enough to supplement both fossils and nuclear.

    It is about resource management + time + long term solutions not solutions for next 100 years. We wasted 50+ years on nuclear and see what miserable it bough us. Dead people, uranium water, cancer etc. I am not even creative here.

    Wind is blowing today, I make money today sit here and laugh about the f#ed up logic from nuclear supporters.

    • liwott@nerdica.net
      1·
      3 years ago

      we would not have the problem if we invested fast enough into renewables, instead we continue to support nuclear

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

      especially not in the big picture when resources running 10 times faster out once you build 10 times more plants

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

      No, but you speedup the research and development if you pump in more money. The money that is wasted for nuclear as some countries continue to build new plants.

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

      It is about resource management + time + long term solutions not solutions for next 100 years

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

      • CHEF-KOCHOP
        12·
        3 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • liwott@nerdica.net
          1·
          3 years ago

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

          I’m talking about Germany. Germany did not invest enough in the past in renewables, is ditching nuclear too quickly and now imports more fossils. Thank you for not reading.

          Also, yes, from the start it’s been about fossils. It’s been about me saying that fossils should be ditched in priority over nuclear, that nuclear be used in transition.

          At some point earlier you were arguing the fossils may not run out as fast as we think. So yes, you were defending going on with fossil based energy being at least equally as good as nuclear. At some point you tried to make it seem like I was in favor of nuclear as the long term solution, but I never said anything like.

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

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

          We had 50+ years as transition already and we did not enough, no we need to act now,

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

          • CHEF-KOCHOP
            12·
            3 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            • liwott@nerdica.net
              1·
              3 years ago

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

              Germany invested a lot into renewables, and is completely ditching nuclear. Except that it ditches nuclear too fast with respect to the renewable sources it managed to build, hence importing more fossil than before.
              That was in my first comment, you agreed with that, we mentioned it again later, and now suddently nobody ever talked about that?

              Even if they didn’t need more fossils, what I’m complaining about is that they still need as many fossils. They focus on ditching nuclear when the climate emergency is to first ditch fossils. Yes, I know they are some fossils involved in nuclear also, but it still pollutes way less than fossil based energy. And pollution is by far the most urgent problem.

              Yes, there remains the problem of dealing with the waste. Yes going on with nuclear is only buying time. Time is the thing that we lack of in the global warming problem. So, for the thousandth time, yes it is more urgent to get rid of fossil-based energy.

              We can get rid of both? Great, let’s do it. But visibly we cannot ditch both of them that fast, as our fossil-based energy use is still growing, despite all the investment in renewables.

              • CHEF-KOCHOP
                13·
                3 years ago
                • I already outlined Germanys problem it is the crippled energy network, a network that was not designed for renewables and decentralized solutions. Fossil fuel debate is over as I explained that other things also depend on it, of course you import more and more because demand is higher and higher that does not start with energy and does not only stop with energy. Making transition will also forces you to use fossil sources.
                • No one except you talked about coal, that is correct. My proposal does not even mention coal or the relevance since exploiting another resource is not put into consideration.
                • You cannot ditch fossil. Since there is no alternatives, you annoy me with your repeatedly copy and paste nonsense.
                • Pollution does not exist with wind energy and pollution si human created problem not natural one. This I already linked in multiple threads. Its an industrial problem combined with cities, cars, etc. Not nuclear as nuclear does not itself create pollution, maybe how you mine uranium, if we put all into consideration but that is all. My model is also not about co2 and pollution since none of my mentioned stuff produce per-se any pollution, only once to establish them which is acceptable.
                • Time gamble can fail, I already mentioned it. Its dangerous to think every problem can be solved. The fossil topic cannot be solved and never will be solved. As practical everything you create, t-shirts, toothpaste depends one way or another on oil. Creating chemical alternatives also only shit the problem, you still need to use - something. And most resources are limited one way or another.
                • We can ditch nuclear perfectly, there is no statistics that contradicts that, the provided and mentioned statistics here are based mainly on coal, again no one talked coal. Those presented statistics also put not several things into consideration, like growth and demand as well as money factors, they are usually on CO2 … Which is pointless since you compare that against coal yet again. Wind is not coal. They are also written my american, USA gives less shit about renewables than Germany or for that matter EU.

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