this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2022

5 points (61.9% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5310 readers

2 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

theloneforager@lemmy.ml

Chloe@lemmy.ml

My proposal on what we should do until 2050 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml to c/green@lemmy.ml

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

🥺

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@CHEFKOCH

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?

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@CHEFKOCH

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...

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 2 points 2 years ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] j_ming@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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/

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

lul

to quote you ...

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GayLegend@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Yeah but what I'm saying is that there's failings with a purely technochratic solution that already present themself; because we have the technology but not the actual political will. Ignoring the political issues is literally useless, it feeds into the climate issues you say you care about. If you'd rather a blog post by a similar marxist that explains the same points if text helps your brain, then I can oblige, but the points are still fr.

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments