this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
173 points (92.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43948 readers
1150 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're more or less describing cap-and-trade, where corporations have a limit of carbon emissions as 'credits' which can be traded on a market. So a company that doesn't produce as much emissions can sell their surplus credits to another company, so the market as a whole doesn't exceed a set amount of CO2 emissions. As it stands, in this or other carbon tax based systems, people pay for emissions in the form of sales tax on CO2 producing products.
I'd imagine they'd just leave again eventually. If suburbia was an advantageous place for them, they'd already be there.
Nuclear plants are somewhat geographically restricted to needing to be close to a suitable water source, there's plenty that are next to or inside metropolitan areas. That being said, high voltage transmission means that a plant can still be a few tens of kms outside of a city before transmission losses start to add up. Also, small-scare reactors have been under development for use in remote communities.
Any sort of dirty water recovery is more efficient at the municipal scale, and plenty of towns are already doing that.
Seems that's not a super easy thing to do (read expensive), but there's research being done... also apparently, a good portion of it in wastewater is from laundry soap... but as in the above, more efficient to just collect all wastewater and process it on a large scale.
I don't think I am. Under cap-and-trade, it's still possible for more than a safe amount of fossil fuels to be extracted from the ground within a given time period and subsequently burned. There's some similarity in the market mechanism, but in my scheme it's connected to actual fossil fuel extraction, not hypothetical emissions quantities.
I don't think the wolves are instinctively avoiding human populations. Wolves were deliberately exterminated from these places, so deliberate efforts are required to bring them back.
Transmission losses aren't the issue. If the plants are close to where people live and work then you can take advantage of cogeneration to provide district heating and utility steam. Also, urban nuclear plants can strengthen the relationship with agricultural regions by generating hydrogen/ammonia for GHG free fertilizer.
I agree, but homes should already have the plumbing to automatically collect bathing and laundry water for flushing toilets. The excess can get sent to the municipal water treatment plant and set aside for industrial uses.
It gets more inefficient if the pee is mixed with the rest of the wastewater, so the idea is to adapt our bathrooms to help keep it separate. Perhaps converting to composting toilets, which collect urine separately, is the way go to here to help with gray water management as well. Anyway, if recovering phosphate from urine seems expensive, that's just relative to mining it from problematic places.