• PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Real question: Most of things listed are consumer level changes. Isn’t the large majority of global warming being caused by industry emissions?

      • Black History Month@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Large scale solar farms have been a thing for decades. Large scale solar adoption is like wrestling with a hydra. The heads are Russia, China, and the middle east. Go nuclear, be the sun.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          What exactly does nuclear change about Russia, China and the middle east? That’s a massive non-sequitur

          Besides, think of China what you will, they’ve been key in driving large scale cheap solar

          • Black History Month@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nuclear is the only energy that really solves our problems. Nothing to really be confused about there.

            You’re taking solar for granted. You’re not asking the important questions. Like, what if they wont sell to us anymore, what’s the human cost of human life? Can you honestly openly hold solar as some separate high accomplishment against the genocides China and Russia are openly complicit it?

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Like, what if they wont sell to us anymore, what’s the human cost of human life?

              Come on, you’re smarter than that. Are you seriously asking, “what happens if China cuts off our supply of solar panels?” Are you a troll, or just dense?

              Think about it. Just think about that for one god-damned second. Solar panels last for DECADES. And even after decades they still retain 75-80% of their original capacity. We move everything to solar, and then China cuts us off from new panels. So then…oh no…we can’t get any replacement panels. Clearly the whole nation will collapse!

              Of course not. Unless you’re Mr. Burns, you’re not blockading the fucking Sun. This isn’t oil, or natural gas, or uranium someone can blockade or embargo. If the US gets cut off from new Chinese solar panels, we have literally DECADES to ramp up our own production until things really become a problem.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              The same can be said for nuclear. Potentially even more so. 3 countries produce almost all of the world’s uranium. What if they stop selling? You can build a domestic solar panel industry if you want, you can’t magic a uranium deposit under your feet. Nuclear is slow, expensive and a national security risk. Renewables are none of these things. Stop shilling for the energy companies that want to keep their monopolies.

              • Black History Month@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Silliness. Your counterpoints are valid, but mostly restate my last comment with somehow even less sense. Buying solar panels from China isn’t more a national security risk than uranium from Australia? I don’t think you really have a well though out point here.

                I’ll restate my own here for posterity and leave you to it. Solar from China Russia bad. Nuclear from literally anyone else good. Nuclear is safer, cheaper, and more efficient in every way at scale.

                Remember, solar is untenable, poorly adopted, and is actively being pumped in price. This is as cheap as it will ever be all things equal. Nuclear has had none of those luxuries. If you think the price drop of a untenable solution is impressive, wait until you see one that really works.

                • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Nuclear is consistently among the most expensive ways to generate power, and only afloat due to massive government subsidies, especially when it comes to waste storage. Whereas solar and wind are only beaten (in some metrics) by natural gas when it comes to power per dollar, getting even cheaper at scale.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

                  Your original point was that renewables are being blocked by China, Russia and the Middle East. I disagree on China, but that’s not the point. How will nuclear, with all strings attached, succeed there, whereas solar and wind won’t? Silliness.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          All that matters is cost in the energy transition. A certain subset of person likes fission because it’s always fun to be contrarian. But there’s a reason fission companies have gone bankrupt left and right, and that we’ve seen countless fission startups collapse over the last two decades. Nuclear proponents like to bitch about strawmen Greenpeace activists and people irrationally afraid of nuclear power. They like talking about these phantom barriers to nuclear, as if fear of nuclear power has anything to do with why fission is a dying technology.

          Fission is dying because it’s just too damned expensive. Bitch all you want about the intermittency of solar; it’s cheaper to just spam solar panels and batteries than it is to create an equal amount of reliable power with fission.

          Nuclear proponents will always state that fission can be done perfectly safe, and that’s true. But when you point out the cost, they then bitch about regulation making it expensive. Never do they connect the dots that it is precisely that heavy-handed regulation that ensures corporate profits don’t result in unsafe power plants.

          Fission is an inherently dangerous technology. Yes, some modern plant designs are “intrinsically safe,” if they’re built right and maintained right and no greedy bastard corporation cuts corners somewhere to save a buck. In order to do nuclear safely, you have to regulate the ever-loving hell out of it and make sure every step of the process is checked and double checked, and that there is some neutral third party looking over everyone’s shoulders. Nuclear power, if done wrong, can go absolutely catastrophically wrong. It can render entire regions uninhabitable for generations. It can be done safely, but only if extremely heavily regulated and tightly controlled. And that is one thing that just inevitably makes fission power extremely expensive. There is no “move fast and break things” when you’re splitting atoms. Development is slow, expensive, and bureaucratic. And that is unfortunately just the way it has to be for this technology to be used safely in a for-profit capitalist society.