this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1078 points (97.3% liked)

solarpunk memes

2711 readers
147 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

As nice as it would be, a not insignificant amount of coal being transported is destined to steel production. Steel is iron + carbon, and the easiest source of carbon is coal. Steel is pretty important, so that's not going away anytime soon. I wonder if carbon capture could make a product that could be used to replace coal here though, and fairly effectively sequester the carbon in an actually useful form?

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What biomass grows the fastest without being waterlogged - I imagine bamboo or sugarcane or something

Grow that, and burn it to make carbon neutral steel; bonus points if you do it in a highrise/underground farm but frankly some medium term reversible environmental damage is preferable to killing off way more with climate change

[–] Phineaz@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eh, purity is a thing. Biomass is the opposite of what you want there, but it could be doable. I do wager, however, that the largest "climate cost" of steel comes from the repeated melting of the steel.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Coal has a bunch of impurities compared to charcoal I thought?

And if the repeated melting is done by burning biomass/charcoal or with clean(er) energy then it's not a huge issue

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Comment105@lemm.ee -4 points 2 days ago (11 children)

I don't know about all of you, but I know I wouldn't want to cross oceans without a good engine.

Storms are not cool. Not being in the age of sail anymore seems good.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You say that, but modern sail concepts are a thing and are already in place as hybrid shipping solutions. Boats require a LOT of energy to do their thing, so any savings translates to big numbers.

https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/new-wind-powered-cargo-ship-sets-sail-2023-08-22_en

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago

High schooler post

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Let’s fucking go!!!

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Another way to look at it: the shipping industry will take a beating while everyone transitions.

If anyone is left wondering why there's so much institutional resistance to changing our energy diet, its institutions like this that are lobbying and generating the propaganda behind it. Energy companies are just one faction.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Or they'd just ship something else? They'd lose some money and scrap a few ships, but the drop in costs would make it more economical to ship whatever else people want, like lumber and funko pops.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mostdubious@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

the biggest resistance is coming from the owner class. the great fear is that we could enter into an age where human labor isn't needed and it becomes feasible to have a society where resources just get distributed for free because everything* is* practically free.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (9 children)

If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn't drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

That's not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was

[–] superkret@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel power.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Yes but fossil fuel cost will drop, and they have existing infrastructure

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago

Would the price crash or would it stabilize at a much higher price as a specialized commodity where the cost of refining no longer benefits from economies of scale and instead only benefits from buyers who are unable or unwilling to use alternatives?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yo, you right

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

I'll allow it.

Bill McKibben is based.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›