The only technology that should be on that list, since using it would enable all the others to thrive: UwU hungry guillotine
It hungers for the blood of the investors
This kind of comment always makes me a little anxious, lol. Technically, I’m one of the investors due to the stock shares in my 401k.
Everyone loves to rail against the billionaires, but in the event of a revolution, I’m afraid that I’d be up against the wall as a mere “thousandaire”.
If you think your 401k makes you one of the investor being discussed, you are very confused. Your 0.000001% of total capital investment puts you very very far down the guillotine line.
Oh, I don’t think I’m being targeted by the rhetoric. What I do worry about is anger at the billionaires being redirected at “all rich people” where the bar for “rich” is merely “owns a house”. Angry mobs have a way of getting out of hand in spite of any logical arguments why you shouldn’t need to worry.
Is it the 401k or the home ownership? Shifting the goal posts is highly suspect that you are in the wrong side of this issue. Those siding with the rich are worthy of the angry mob’s wrath, in my opinion.
Accusing me of “shifting the goalposts” is really shitty. I’m not making some grand political argument here, lol, I’m just vaguely musing about my prospects if we have a “cultural revolution” style upheaval here.
Me, I’m just thinking about people whose fortune is able to change the world, like billionaires because you need a hundred millionares to do what one billionaire can do without effort
The math doesn’t check out.
I wasn’t talking about their capital in its entirety. For a billionaire, a hundred million is just 10% of their wealth whereas it would take a hundred millionaires to achieve that amount of money.
If you want more comparisons, I saw this page a while back: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
The people who make those kinds of comments are the ones that weren’t paying attention in history class.
Sure, and then what? If we keep the systems around that created this situation in the first place, we’ll end up back where we started, just with new rich people.
Just to pick out the example of veganism: If all rich people are dead, but the masses still want cheap meat every single day, they WILL definitely reinvent factory farming, with all it’s horrible environmental and ethical consequences.
We have the technologies. The list goes on and on and on. We just need to employ them instead of waiting further for magical fixes.
Posting and liking memes is great, but real change comes from actions. If you are as concerned as we are about climate change, please consider joining or supporting climate activists near you.
We don’t need new technologies to overcome the issue of global warming itself; we need them to overcome the issue of human nature. People (in the population level sense, not individually) are not good at long term thinking. Solving global warming with current technologies will require a change in lifestyle from just about everyone. It’s the kind of change that will have no perceivable reward to most people. That’s why a lot of those solutions like biking, veganism, etc, will never catch on.
I am vegan btw but the amount of people who say apathetic shit like ‘one person can’t make a difference, it’s all the corporations fault, wah’ is honestly depressing. We get the society we ask for and until people start asking for something different nothing changes.
I have a super mixed reaction here. On one hand, it’s a good attitude as an individual to do what you can. OTOH, is it apathetic to realize that one billionaire’s private jet adds more pollution than a thousand vegans can offset by being parsimonious with their consumption?
To keep a livable Earth, we need high-level systemic change to move the needle on that dial, not just a few thousand people making extreme sacrifices (tradeoffs? I shouldn’t talk about being vegan as a sacrifice, lol) in lifestyle.
Edit: I’m thinking partly of celebrities booking commercial flights instead of flying private jets, but I’m also thinking about multinational corporations doing stupid things. CVS printing mile-long receipts, Amazon (or others) shipping tiny things in ginormous boxes, or hey, the expectation that every product on a retail shelf must be shrink-wrapped.
You’re right, the effects of individuals or even a decent sized group often pale in comparison to the effects of large scale corporations. And, I guess this is where my views probably differ from a lot of people’s, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not do the right thing as an individual, or at least attempt to.
I saw some Swifties do the math on how many of them going vegan it would take to offset her private jet emissions and I have no idea on the accuracy of this and honestly the whole thing sounds silly to me but it was like 70,000. That probably sounds discouraging to a lot of people but to me it’s just like small differences add up.
And I think 70,000 voices are a lot easier for a government or corporation to hear. Think of it as votes and suddenly it sounds like a pretty big deal. Big systemic changes come from lots of people rejecting the status quo, and I’d rather be one of the people rejecting it, you know?
You have to think practically: When has systemic change ever happened without individuals choosing to make a change? Never!
It’s the same for voting, or boycotting or unionizing or even guillotining. The french kings head didn’t spontaneously fall off, it involved many individuals making a choice, risking their life and even dieing.
Yes, that’s true. I do think we need a two-pronged approach: On the individual level, do what you can. Every little bit helps.
On the systemic level, lobby for some meaningful reforms.
But in the meantime, I think it’s rather grotesque to fantasize about murdering people. Guillotine parties have ways of spiraling out of control.
On the human level, people won’t as capitalism is so deeply ingrained in our culture, do you drive? Stop driving you can’t because you have work that’s in the next town over? Get a job that’s closer? Stop buying non seasonal goods from your local supermarket? Stop buying random shit with air miles on it.
We can all make these changes but people won’t because our monkey brains seek the fastest root to serotonin therefore government must harshly regulate at the corporate level. Build infrastructure at the civil level.
“Harshly regulate” indeed. Governments the world over subsidise fossil fuel and multinational corpos. If they just redirected that investment towards local business and low-carbon energy and transport, we’d have a lot more carrot than stick to drive change.
I agree, and I think you’re even perhaps being a bit harsh, people can do things, but a lot of the time it’s so impractical as to not be worth considering. In a car based society it can be almost impossible to forego a car. And I certainly don’t blame anyone for doing what they need to survive or even just live comfortably.
The only thing I have an issue with is people who otherwise could, choosing inaction because ‘corporations’. Corporations are almost 100% to blame, political parties being able to take bribes/donations is one of the biggest failings of modern society and has led to so much harm it’s almost unfathomable. But I still don’t accept that as an excuse to do nothing, corporations and politicians aren’t going to change otherwise.
100%, I don’t blame the person I blame the society and the one where in focuses on importing foods and goods, chewing through fossil fuels, and we don’t get to choose where our energy comes from, we don’t get to choose where our foods come from. Company’s even set up campaigns to put the blame on the users like carbon foot print was made by shell to shift the blame to the consumer.
A world where everyone does the best they can to avoid and/or fight against bad systems is absolutely the ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD where positive change can happen.
How else would the world change if not through individuals choosing to do the right thing? Are really expecting the same people that have fucked us(rich/politicians) to spontaneously develop a conscience and change the world out of the goodness of their hearts?
Before you bring up guillotines, those ALSO require individuals to make personal choices and changes and take risks.
Have you spoken to people in your life/work about this. Words are cheap and most people will agree but they still continue to buy from Amazon, they still shop from food places that import foods, they still buy the newest cars.
But you are right that social change isn’t impossible and more and more people are becoming aware that they must make personal change.
I disagree that politicians are incapable of doing good, I’m not in america so things are different not to say they’re all good but there are MPs that try like my local, she’s helping me in setting up community gardens.
They also only ever believe that when it’s about work THEY have to do. If it’s about other people, or it’s about things that directly affects them, the tune suddenly changes.
I can’t, as an individual, end rape culture. Is that therefore an excuse to keep making rape jokes, defending rapists etc.? Obviously not, but by the logic of “people against individual change” it’s entirely logically consistent. As long as I say “rape culture bad”, I can keep supporting it. I just have to wait for magical “systemic change without individual change” to rain down from heaven.
We have seen, that people and societies are extremely adaptable to changes in lifestyle. The transformation of the Netherlands to a cycling -friendly country for example. Car free city centers. People were very opposed to them before. But once the changes were made, people were happy with them and adapted to the new options. There’s also negative examples where people adapted to new negative lifestyles such as car centric cities. Or smog, pollution, garbage landfills, or rivers that one is not allowed to swim in due to pollution. People are surprisingly adaptable to new conditions. We just have to do it.
So true. Systematic problems require systematic solutions
I think biking has a much higher chance; improved fitness and health, and improved mental health from increased activity and time outdoors are tangible benefits people would notice in a not too short amount of time.
Not to mention the money you save by not having to fuel up a vehicle. Gas is very expensive where I live. (1.50$/L in Canada atm)
Trains are based. Fight me car stans
Thanks!
I mean, some breakthroughs with large battery tech would be nice to really take advantage of solar and wind.
We’re pretty much there on flow batteries and a few others. The nice thing about grid storage is that kwh per kg is far less important than it is for EVs. That opens up a ton of other options.
Pretty much just need mass production at this point.
Has someone already produced a large-scale long-duration flow battery, like something that can handle a moderate energy grid?
I haven’t been following the tech very closely.
Oh cool, hadn’t heard about this facility. Thanks!
Only way to stop climate change is to STOP CONSUMING SO MUCH
Best way to stop consuming is to stop having children
mhh. nope.
Best way to reduce consumption is preventing rich people from obscene over consumption. Do you know how many average children could grow up and life a lifetime on the emissions of Tylor Swifts private jet tours? (Arbitrary example, because it has lots of attention right now. Goes for the lifestyle of most rich and super rich people)
What if I told you, on the world stage, “rich person” encompasses most Americans.
What if i told you with renewable energy, public transit mobility, an end to the 9to5 and consume excess hamster wheel, proper recycling and sustainable products everyone could life a good life, many americans even a better life?
The world has enough ressources to sustain a larger human population and give everyone the means to a decent life. It is solely in the way things are done right now, in particular the obscenely rich, that are unsustainable.
A decommodification of housing would be amazing as well.
- sustain a larger human population
No, we are way over budget on people as it is. Sustain means ‘indefinitely under current conditions’.
Can you point me to a dictionary that specifies, that it can only refer to the current conditions?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sustain
It suggest as meanings to maintain, to provide, to encourage… In the meaning of provide and maintain there is no limit to current conditions.
I have laid out the conditions under which the world can sustain such a human population. I find it linguistically wrong to limit it in such a way, that only the current situation is permissable. This is directly contradictorary to any use in relation to future like planning.
E.g. “we plan the building to sustain a 6.5 earthquake” would be wrong under your criteria, as neither the building, nor the earthquake exist at the point of that statement…
I was thinking more in terms of climatic conditions.
For context:
Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.
IDK how I feel about this argument.
Some people don’t care about having kids, others have an innate desire to do so, a biological contact that yearns for fulfilment.
Maybe it’s a lame appeal to emotion but one of the defining characteristics of life is the ability to reproduce.
If you’re not into kids, it’s pretty easy to say “people should stop having kids”, but that assertion is a bit of a kick in the guts to those that feel that drive.
It’s a bit of a moot point for people in developed countries anyway. As in we can all congratulate ourselves on being enlightened enough to realise that we’re overpopulated, but there’s billions of people having as many children as possible to support them in their retirement.
Unachievable though it may be, I think global universal education, healthcare, and UBI is the solution to over population.
I agree that if you don’t feel the need to have children, it is very easy to argue that its a good move, compared to if you have the biological desire to have them. On the other hand, you can argue that this is what environmental movements are all about. Controlling our desires, in order to avoid exploiting the ecosystem.
If you’re not into kids, it’s pretty easy to say “people should stop having kids”, but that assertion is a bit of a kick in the guts to those that feel that drive
I understand that not everyone can accept not having children, especially if the reason is be to help the climate. On the other hand, we don’t recognize the same “kick in the gut” to someone who feels the need to eat red meat, explore the world or own a big house.
To me, stopping a line of expanding consumerism is a very strong move, as a long term climate action. I can’t compare them to short term actions, but not putting more human in the world, who will keep consuming, and will keep adding even more consumers in the world, feels better to me than turning vegan. I can help the itch, of needing children, by caring for the children in my closest family or even help local organisations setup to match adults to children (a sort of freelance parent/mentor)
Imagine thinking that telling people on the internet to not have kids is an effective strategy against climate change, while downplaying the importance of going vegan. Continuing to be an animal abuser is also more than a kick in the gut to all the animals who are born in extreme captivity, live a life of constant torture and rape, only to be slaughtered (usually in childhood) just so people can satiate their gluttony for a little sensory pleasure and delude themselves into thinking they need to do that because they’ve been trained by unscientific marketing teams into thinking it’s the only way they can get protein.
On the other hand there are a lot of antinatalists in the vegan communities. So if you went vegan, you’d be in good company.
I don’t need to imagine it. I just did it.
I don’t argue that we need to pick one over the other though. Simply that there is no one right way to everybody.
Kudos to you if you do both and even better if you also don’t have a car and drink rain water.
I blame advertising. We should pass laws that every second ad needs to be designed to reduce the amount of shit people buy and cancel out whatever other ads are playing
I argue it’s better to stop producing so much.
Don’t blame consumers for consuming what’s placed in front of them. Blame the producers for producing collectively more shit than the entire population will ever need or want.
I blame them both. Neither can do it without the other.
I agree it’s both but they can do it without the other. Remember when all those copies of the ET videogame were dumped in a whole? It’s a weird example but they often create a lot of product that’s never sold. Likewise consumers will be extremely wasteful and fickle. Like how people won’t buy ugly fruits and veggies so instead ugly carrots are cut into baby carrots.
Remember when all those copies of the ET videogame were dumped in a whole?
No but I assume there was never an ET 2?
I promise there’s more corporate waste nobody purched it’s not a stretch.
Of course it is. Corporations don’t throw money away producing things they know people won’t buy.
They do all the time actually. You need more product than you will sell basically always.
Err….they definitely aren’t producing more than people want, or at least not enough to matter since they are making loads of money producing things….
I take it you’ve never been to a landfill eh
Not claiming they aren’t producing more than people need just that people seem to want more. There is a sure conversation around the psychology of enticing people to constantly buy buy buy and how lots of products are ‘disposable’ though
So they are definitely producing more than people want? That conflicts with what you previously said.
No they are producing more than people need. People are buying what they want.
And I think people should buy fairphones. It’s a great idea and it needs to be a compelling phone to get more people to buy it.
The problem is that ethics alone as a reason to buy is shit because it’s better to go used ethically.
It’s the reusable grocery bag of phones as long as it’s not comparable to other phones.
No, the only way is to drastically reduce the human population.
Not all humans cause an equal amount of emissions though.
Yes. Top three countries are USA, China and India. We can start with them and see how it goes.
Found the Malthusian
you first
That would be a great way to reduce consumption
“No not that! I want to do EXACTLY as I did before but YOU do something about it. Can’t you like build a technology to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere or something?”
Can we trail like monkeys to pick up trash?
It’s more a problem of all the human people want to live good lives, look at how many threads on the front page are talking about cost of living crisis and etc as serious social problems which need to be fixed - there’s a thread where everyone says we should all be in walking distance to all key amenities, I bet they all think that the average persons wage should be able to afford to enjoy those things regularly too and have access to healthy fresh food, good clothes, etc etc
The world people want where everyone has access to a good life has never existed, even in America there is still generational and regional poverty but globally it’s much more intense - it would be very unfair to say ‘sorry we’re not going to try and continue progress so you can live the same life I do, we’re actually going back so you get less and work harder - it’s not because further progress is impossible or anything but I personally don’t really like new technology so, well, sucks to be you I guess.’
The technology which you’re talking about carbon capture is an incredibly good technology and just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. It’s not a magic wand of course but no one said it is, the uses with SAF and bioavailable carbon for example open up a lot of possibilities not just in rich nations but actually more so in developing nations allowing growth without oil infrastructure.
What is the point of what you wrote?
The problem with carbon capture is it’s not pulling anywhere near the amount of carbon from the air as needed and it’s currently very expensive. And it’s an easy out for politicians. A lot of the plans seem to be “we’ll do the easy stuff to reduce CO2 emissions, so how much more is the net emissions come to? Ok then we will do that much carbon capture… someday… somehow…”
And a good amount of it is pumping CO2 into oil wells… to extract more oil.
We really don’t know how well carbon capture will work on the large scales needed to balance the books on the “easy mode” net zero policies. Given how expensive it is, is it the most economically viable solution?
Sure the cost may decrease… but by how much?
A lot of question marks with it in terms of economic viability.
I do think it’s needed but I’d prefer it being something that’s just used for fuel that’s extremely difficult to replace, like fuel for airplanes. It seems feasible to tack on a big enough carbon tax on jet fuel to cover the cost of the carbon capture of that fuel. Sure airline travel will get more expensive, but that should be fine. But the level of carbon tax needed to cover the costs for ground transport using fossil fuels seems like it would be prohibitive.
deleted by creator
“We need new technologies that can be controlled by a megacorporation to make a select few rich, not things that individuals can do or use that can break the hold of existing monopolies”
And thus the shilling for nuclear power began.
nuclear is beyond most private corporations. The profit breav-even is too far into the future for all but governments.
Is nuclear a bad option? Only downsides I’ve heard are basically optics problems. Barring facilities that catastrophically failed on top of horrid safety policy negligence, they seem perfectly suited for baseline power production.
Cost. The reality is nuclear is not just more expensive than every other option, it’s a lot more. I remember seeing something like ten times the cost of solar, per whatever unit of energy
Cost, where we get uranium, how to handle the wastes. And it may fail even more if we fail to cool it down (less water due to Earth warming up)
Thanks for that thought, I was confused who is arguing so much for nuclear that is not solving anything and is too expensive.
Shilling makes a lot of sense, but never came to me.
And downvotes without explanation, even here. I guess normal people are also under influence.
Yeah we already have the technology needed, we have to implement them.
And much of the tech is actually very old. Electric trains are like a century old. So for a lot of things, we have to re-implement technology we foolishly removed.
Oil was just a bad technology path. Gotta get back on the right path.
The technology path is fine, the adoption isn’t.
Path: plastics are miracle materials. Lots of great uses for it.
Adoption: mass producing single use throwaway shit everything.
Long term plastic aren’t as big of an issue as one time use plastics are. Wax paper and aluminum containers can both replace consumable bottles for instance.
Our battery tech is not up to par, and chances are, will never be. Need something in replacement. Nuclear, not the same, but good enough.
Nuclear trains and cargo ships might actually be necessary, even. In North America and over oceans, getting the vehicle weights, the weights of cargo and the distances between cities to work under any reasonable system means not just DC but even AC are insufficient in transmission range on land (and of course useless in the middle of an ocean), and companies like Amazon and AliExpress account for a lot of direct climate-disrupting emissions and a good chunk of the wealth letting assholes like Bezos live like kings at everyone else’s detriment.
Nuclear trains, WTF? There have been electric trains for over a century. In fact most Diesel trains actually have electric motors powering the wheels with a diesel generator powering the electric motors. Instead of having to think about repercussions of what happens when a nuclear powered train derails in a populated area, why not just run some overhead wires over the tracks like people have been doing for a century?
One of the problems with hydrogen is the lack of density means there’s a need for larger fuel tanks. This is less of a problem for cargo ships and trains than it is for most other vehicles. And again less worry of nuclear materials being hauled around population centers or in areas where there’s pirate activity.
Okay, to be fair, I was assuming the nuclear trains would be doing cross-country freight hauls and never for passenger service.
Upvoted for the hydrogen, you’re probably right about fuel cells being a better option.
The main problem with hydrogen is distribution. You’d have to build pipelines to a lot of train terminals to refuel the trains. So it seems to me running overhead wires for electric trains would be the better options for most cases. Yeah it’s a century old technology there’s nothing sexy about it, but since it’s old tech it’s well tested and will be reliable. The thing with technology is that you usually have to have a transitional phase that’s viable. Many “diesel” trains actually have electric motors that drive the wheels, they just haul around a diesel generator to power those electric motors. So you could use the overhead wires where available and run the diesel generators on parts of the track that don’t have that in place yet while transitioning. Then when there’s complete electric coverage, do away with the diesel generators entirely.
I think hydrogen for ships makes sense because a port could have a hydrogen terminal similar to present day LNG terminals. LNG is transported by ship so hydrogen could also be transported to the terminals similarly. Eventually hydrogen pipelines can be built from there, but pipelines take time to build.
The main problem with electric is also distribution. 95% of all North American heavy rail lines are unelectrified.
I can see taking a risk on hydrogen trains might not pan out, just saying electric is something that draws from the electrical grid (which is at capacity in the Pacific, Texan and Atlantic grids) and there’s no easy/single solution. If only for avoiding pirates by staying far from shore indefinitely, ships should at least have the option to be nuclear but require a US Navy-certified team at the port to inspect it and do needed maintenance/repairs before each time it sets sail.
As for nuclear trains, at the very least you have to admit that it’s not as simple as “just transmit power along the rail line from LA to NY”.
Everything is going to have issues, but electrifying rail is proven technology and doesn’t require the infrastructure to be 100% complete before it can be used. Building pipelines is far more expensive than power lines and you’d need to have hydrogen distribution across the country before rolling out hydrogen trains. Green hydrogen generation requires electricity too, so there’s no difference in terms of the need for electricity.
There will always be problems with environmental catastrophes from nuclear materials on vehicles so it should be limited to only military naval vessels that need it. Using US naval personnel doesn’t really solve the problem of inspections and maintenance, it’s just shifting responsibility. The Navy would need to train more people to do these inspections and there’s nothing about a Navy that makes that free.
As for nuclear trains, at the very least you have to admit that it’s not as simple as “just transmit power along the rail line from LA to NY”.
There are no simple solutions, but electrified rail is the simplest solution from all available options. Electrified rail is a century old technology and is implemented around the world already. As fun as it may be to come up with outside the box type solutions, we actually already have most of the technology needed to solve global warming, we’re only lacking a willingness to implement it.
While nuclear container ships would be very useful for reducing emissions I’m not sure I want to trust shipping companies with nuclear reactors given the track record of ship accidents and noncompliance with environmental regulations. Feels like they’d just dump the nuclear waste into the ocean.
Also piracy would suddenly become a much bigger issue.
Removed by mod
Sure, on board, but we the people would still need to then build a new world with different systems valuing different things. Most of those things are on that list.
Without the individual changing, we’d just end up swapping rich people.
Alright that’s funny XD
Veganism isn’t better for the environment than significantly reducing the total amount of consumed meat. Animals play an important, difficult-to-replace role in making agriculture sustainable. Animals can be herded on land that’s difficult to farm on, animals can consume parts of farmed plants that humans cannot, and animals produce products that humans cannot replicate without significantly more work.
Edit: I see a bunch of vegans who aren’t really engaging with the argument. To be clear, anyone who makes statements about how things are right now to try to disprove this is probably arguing in bad faith. I’m not responding to comments anymore because, while it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, y’all aren’t making any good points.
Furthermore, I’m not anti-vegan, but now I’m tempted to be. So many people I’ve engaged with have displayed all of the worst vegan stereotypes I’ve heard about. I’ve always assumed it was chuds making shit up, but no I just hadn’t met any of the terminally online creeps in the vegan community yet OMFG.
Yes, we need to significantly reduce the amount of consumed meat (maybe not insects, if we consider them meat). A step towards more vegan and vegetarian food would definitely be necessary. Yes, not everyone needs to be vegan. But we need to consume way more vegan and vegetarian food.
Insects are meat. Why are you so keen on eating bugs?
Well lobster tastes pretty good so I’m pretty hopeful about the land bugs.
I actually don’t like lobster (I prefer the meatless versions) but that’s a fair point.
deleted by creator
There is a general consensus that insects are not considered equal in terms of animal cruelty like mammals, as they have much smaller and simpler nerve systems.
In regards to ecological imprint insects have a much better feed to food ratio and you can feed them much more things than to grazing animals.
I agree that insects are generally less ethically significant than mammals, but as far as using English food category words I don’t see how it’s useful to draw a hard distinction between the category of “meat” and the category of “insects who’s bodies can be cooked and eaten”.
The reason I asked the question is that I noticed they made multiple comments about eating insects and I was curious as to the motivations behind their position.
In vegan communities insects are very much extended the same moral considerations as other animals. What you’re advocating is a form of speciesism, which is something better avoided as much as possible.
Anti-specieism is an argument often brought by vegan fascists, arguing that killing humans is no worse than killing mosquitos.
Also the concept of avoiding specieism fails the moment you look into nature. Is the cat that eats a mouse a speciest? Should you let mosquitos bite you and transmit diseases because killing them would be speciest? Are the farmers in Southern Africa that are plagued by locusts speciest for trying to protect their harvest?
Probably you would consider these examples as legitimate. But what about the building of the house you reside in? The production of your electronics, your energy usage…
It is impossible to make a consistent value frame of what is acceptable killing of animals and what isn’t, if you deem an individual fly as equally protectworthy as a sheep or a human.
Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continuous torture, rape, exploitation, commodification, and perpetual holocaust-levels of slaughter of virtually every species of animal that is not human, are fascists?
Here’s the most commonly accepted definition of veganism:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”"
Emphasis added. The vast majority of vegans do not believe that killing a mosquito is exactly equivalent to killing a human, and even of the people who do, it’s intended to imply that all species lives are important, that the mosquito’s life is seen as equally valuable to the human’s. The only reason such a proposition seems abhorrent to you is because you’re looking at the mosquito through the lens of your carnist supremacist mindset, which is to see the mosquito as something worthless and thus conclude that a human’s life is considered by vegans to be equally worthless.
But again, like everyone else vegans take anti-speciesism only as far as is practical. We just do it better. The mosquito bite is easy. If you know mosquitos are around, it’s wise to wear repellent, and take other appropriate precautions depending on your circumstances. Maybe modify your environment if possible to be less of a breeding ground for them, if it’s bad enough. If you’re dealing with a particular mosquito, odds are they have already bitten you, so how is the lethal carnist reaction any more protective against a disease that may have already been transmitted, than simply blowing on the mosquito to get them to fly away?
Locust infestations happen because of shitty agricultural practices. If you’ve got a plot of land that’s full of nothing but copies of one tantalizing crop, then of course it’s going to be an obvious buffet for a vast amount of insects. Are veganic farming or veganic permaculture methods extreme? Or is it more extreme that our most common monocultural methods of farming are causing so much pollution that it’s bringing so many vital pollinators to the brink of extinction?
You make the same erroneous argument that many other carnists make, which is the idea that because vegan values can’t always be practiced perfectly, that somehow automatically means the entire ethical framework is without merit. But that’s obviously nonsensical. To the individual mosquito or mouse, it makes all the difference in their entire little lives, whether they incidentally pestered a vegan or carnist. It’s been estimated that a single vegan living their values results in about 200 fewer livestock animals being slaughtered every year. Is it extreme to live in a way that would end factory farms forever if we all embraced it, or what about the lifestyle that created them in the first place?
Nearly every half-baked gotcha that carnists try to catch vegans in has a common-sense practical answer. The example of predation in wild areas is a point of contention in vegan communities, whether we should intervene or not and ultimately make rather significant changes to the natural world, but presently it doesn’t really matter, because there are so many other obvious abuses that need to end.
Veganism only looks extreme from the deluded perspective of carnism. But in reality going vegan is like becoming sober, and recognizing how disturbing it was to live the way that so many continue to.
Vegan fascists? The people who are trying to put an end to the forced captivity, continu…
Those guys:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/evb4zw/why-so-many-white-supremacists-are-into-veganism
And those guys (German Article):
https://www.belltower.news/vegane-nazis-wie-rechstextreme-mit-ihre-ernaehrung-ideologisieren-91901/
I’m not keen on eating bugs, most of them just are similar in environmental damage as vegan food. Insects are also already in almost all processed foods because they are small and almost everywhere. They just don’t fall in the same category as what we in the western civilization typically consider meat (as a food).
Veganism is good for climate, biodiversity, health and animal welfare. We really don’t need to eat animals or animal products to have good meal and live a happy life. The good thing is that humans are omnivores, with a free choice of what to eat. Please choose wisely, not only for your own mental and physical health, but also for others, living now as well as in years to come.
Not everyone can eat a pure vegan diet. We are omnivores. We don’t get to pick, we must eat it all to stay healthy.
So do it. While some people would argue vefpganism is ideal, the important part is “less meat”, especially less beef. I’d give kudos to anyone who eats one less beef meal per week: chicken is much easier in the environment than beef, or ne less meat meal,
The word Ideal is very generic. Ideal to who? What is ideal? Your health? The climate? Your bowel movement?
Meat contributes a ton of CO2. 15% of global output in just beef alone. Pork and Chicken is better.
Instead of pickering over words we could just acknowledge the underlying facts.
Those who can, and most people in western industrialized countries can, should reduce their meat consumption. For most of them veganism is a viable option, especially as there is easy access to doctors checking as well as supplements if there is difficulties.
There is no intrinsic need for animal protein or fats for a healthy diet.
The reduction of meat or even the total mandatory switch to all vegan diet won’t stop climate change since it’s such a small % in the total carbon footprint compared to our energy needs.
Your tribalism thoughts should be better focused on things like our need for clean energy like nuclear and solar.
I am neither vegan nor vegetarian, nor do i propose a mandatory switch to such diets. I also don’t mind people who primarily eat meat, as they are still traditional herders or hunters like in Central Asia or parts of Africa. But you know what these people don’t do? Fly on vacation twice a year, go on cruises, drive 20.000 km or more a year, consume 5 MWh of electricity per person and year…
The current way of animal farming with the current meat consumption results in about 10-17% of global GHG emissions. That is about the same emissions like all road traffic.
And unlike cars, where you could reduce the emissions effectively by using EVs, you simply cannot change a cow from emititting substantial amounts of methane, and the effects of the land conversion necessary for it’s feed.
Finally the argument, that X source of emission would be irrelevant to target since it is so small on the global scale is the prime whataboutism argument to not adress any emissions. “Oh our country is only making 1% of global emissions, we don’t have to change.” “Oh our industry could cut emissions in half in three years, but what about the other industry?”
People in western countries eat way too much meat. Any reduction to that is good, be it by reducing your meat consumption significantly or by switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet.
Everyone needs nutrients they can digest. The source doesn’t matter under these conditions. Excluding rare medical cases, everyone can get all required nutrients from non-animal sources, ergo everyone can have and live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet.
Meat has more than just protein. It has so many micronutrients that your body needs that you would have to take a shit ton of supplements to just come close to it. Sure, you can survive without those micronutrients. But why go through all the trouble?
that you would have to take a shit ton of supplements to just come close to it
If you would’ve taken a dive into healthy vegan diets, you would know that this isn’t true.
But why go through all the trouble?
I thought we already established that in the comments here.
I don’t understand veganism enough to speak about it and don’t care enough to look into it. I’ll take your word for it though.
Meat production is in the single digits in actual global pollution. The problem isn’t our diet. The problem is the fossil fuel industry which contributes to 79+% of the world’s pollution. If I had a light switch that can turn off all meat production, nothing would change. If I did the same for fossil fuels, it would instantly stop climate change.
Focus on who the enemy is here. It’s not us, the people. It’s the fossil fuel industry. Demand change from your government. We need clean energy from things like nuclear, solar, wind and whatever new innovation comes from government investments.
I don’t really care. Abusing (using) animals for food and work is cruel anyway, if me not doing that because I think it’s wrong is good for the environment, great! If it’s not, fine, but it’s not why I do it.
That’s the thing. Ethics and impact on the environment can be two different things. If you decide to go that way, you’re fine. Do it. However we need animals for stated reasons. We have to eat less meat/generally consume less animal products.
We also need to stop overproducing everything. America makes far too much corn, because/and the industry is heavily subsidized.
The amount of food waste in North America is astounding. Completely unnecessary.
True. That’s the same with everything. As long as it is worth to produce stuff just to throw it away we will damage our planet more and more.
Yup… I want those subsidies to shift to hemp production. So many far more useful products that will be able to be produced rather than food processors playing hide the corn. It is a drop in replacement for the ethanol in gas since the seeds are 30% oil.
But we don’t produce hemp, and megacorps go… Here’s another ethane cracker plant.
We do that so you can go to the store and actually find food. It’s so we don’t have another famine…has nothing to do with anything else you’re trying to point out.
You have zero idea what you are talking about.
Yea totally, no clue what I’m talking about at all, just own a farm and understand our food economy…but nope no clue.
So you’re telling me the government uses tax payer money to prop up your farm so that… we can actually find the food at the grocery stores?
And then with all that extra corn that you’re producing they have to find a myriad of other uses (like the syrup that making the entire country obese, for one)?
So clearly you’re way more enlightened on the subject since you own a farm, so why don’t you tell the class why subsidizing an unnecessarily oversized industry is a good thing.
Don’t shy away from this. You’re the expert.
No, animal captivity, exploitation, rape, slaughter, and consumption are all things that are very much unnecessary, and are detrimental in many ways.
I disagree that raising and keeping animals because we want their products or labor is cruel, and I especially disagree that referring to that as abuse is useful.
What standard of cruelty and ethical framework are you using to come to your conclusion?
Edit: as stated in my other comment, I don’t believe that it’s cruel in principle; I’m not denying that the industry has cruel practices.
It may not be cruel in principle, but it is usually cruel in practice. Still, I like the the guiding principle to try to not let minor benefits to myself (e.g. an easier way to a nice meal) go above vital benefits of other creatures.
I was speaking in terms of principles rather than discussing practical reality. Of course cruel practices are common in farming in general and the meat industry in particular; I’m not disputing that.
Edit: Why TF am I being downvoted?
How is it not cruel?
I’m not watching a vegan shock video.
If you disagree with me, you should be able to put in to words why you believe all instances (real and hypothetical) of keeping animals for the stated reasons should be considered cruel. If what I said is a strawman of your position, then you don’t disagree with what I meant to say.
It’s because fundamentally you are still commodifying whole living, thinking beings who have their own wills and lives they want to live. We need to reckon with the fact that it is unjust for us humans to think we have any right to declare other species of animals as property.
Ethical emotivism. A framework most people use, although few admit it.
Ethical emotivism isn’t a self-consistent ethical framework. It’s arguably not even an ethics system; it’s a philosophical attitude towards ethics as a field of study.
We don’t need animals to consume plants we can’t, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.
Any form of “sustainable” animal farming I’ve read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we’re truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That’s not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.
Finally, why do you feel that it’s important to argue for “99%” veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don’t understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don’t you realize the humongous difference between “we should abuse animals for our pleasure less” vs. “we shouldn’t do that”? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between “animal” and “lesser moral consideration”.
why do you feel that it’s important to argue for “99%” veganism
This argument relies on false assumptions about my ethics and an incorrect representation of my position. First: I don’t want to reduce meat consumption/production by any specific ammount; I am currently unconvinced that removing domestic animals from food production entirely is maximally efficient, but think it’s clear that the current ammount of meat is unsustainable and thus must be reduced by some ammount that is currently unknown to me. Furthermore, I don’t believe that all living things qualify as “people” for moral considerations. Since I do not believe all living things are people unless proven otherwise, why should I consider all animals as people unless proven otherwise? There are certain animals that I consider to be people and thus give moral consideration equal to humans such as certain species of corvid, dolphins, elephants, and octopi which have demonstrated traits that make me believe they should qualify. In order to convince me, you need to either provide me an alternative definition of a person and demonstrate why it’s superior or to show me that all animals fit into my definition of person.
Edit: forgot to mention your other argument, but simply put it’s also off the mark. While I agree that eating plants directly is more efficient, that doesn’t address the thesis of my argument. So long as there exists circumstances such that we produce plant matter (as a waste product) that an animal can consume and humans do not in quantities sufficient to feed a stock of animals of some size including those animals in food production and feeding them the plant matter is more efficient than throwing away that plant matter. Your argument needs to be more robust.
Have fun eating grass, drinking nonpotable water and eating roots and stalks and rotting vegetables…you militant vegans are hilarious.
Yes because calling out the bullshit is a strawman, you might wanna go read your own links lol.
See above.
Yes you really told me, damn…thanks for the discussion you’ve changed my mind.
If you were open for a discussion and for the possibility to change your views, you wouldn’t have used bogus arguments. I just wanted to point those out, as it is probably meaningless to waste my time in a discussion with you anyway.
Lookup veganic farming, and veganic permaculture. The idea that animal ag has any place in combating global warming is demonstrably false, and was nothing more than a greenwashed hijacking of the other various regenerative agricultural movements. There is no room in neither a just world, or a sustainable one, for the exploitation and consumption of animals.
Sir you forget that in China there are pig condos
Most of the vegan food we grow is fed to animals, so we can eat them. Feeding and housing animals for food consumption purposes requires 83% of our total farmland, but produces only 18% of our calorific intake.
If the world went vegan, we’d only use 25% of the farm land we currently do, meaning we don’t need to use that “difficult to farm” land.
Unfortunately there is literally no valid argument against veganism. If there were, I wouldn’t be vegan.
You forgot, Work from Home.
and reforestation.
I feel that’s nested under veganism since consuming that way would leave far more land to be wild/reforested.
You need to actually plant and manage the forest. Letting fields go to fallow wont be enough. I’m talking about selecting tree species that grow fast and intake carbon at a higher rate then others and then cutting, processing, and replanting in a rotation pattern(so wild life and move from section to section).
Also, many people are vegans because of animal ethics or because it’s trendy, but aren’t really thinking about larger issues. Think of all the celebrities that are vegan, but fly private jets.
I’d like to see effort put into restoring the land back to how it was before our initial interventions. But I do think after that’s done, leaving it alone to allow wild animals to repopulate the area is probably right. That land was doing just fine before we came along.
Also, many people are vegans because of animal ethics or because it’s trendy, but aren’t really thinking about larger issues.
Most vegans would say they’re doing it for animal rights, yes. This doesn’t preclude vegans from caring about the other good reasons for going plant-based. At very least, carrying animal rights further, it makes sense that it would help animal welfare to repair some of the damage we’ve done.
One of the most visible vegans I know of talks about this so it’s definitely on vegan’s minds.
Think of all the celebrities that are vegan, but fly private jets.
Yeah that ain’t me or most vegans bud.
Yeah that ain’t me or most vegans bud.
I was just using them as a high visibility, well known example. No where did I say they represent the majority. Personally, I know many people who actually think plastic recycling works, so they don’t do anything to curb their plastic use. Many, many people take on one or two positive actions and are hyper proud of it. I know someone who’s super proud that his car gets above average mpg, but is constantly accelerating and braking and ruining his mpg. Covid response of people taking half measures and being proud of it.
I already have a second hand and telling people to grow a second hand just feels ableist to those who can’t. /j
deleted by creator
Clean Fukushima corium first.
Pretty telling that the main counterpoint is referencing the second biggest nuclear disaster in history that made a staggering zero deaths.
Evacuation did almost 2500 deaths.
Evacuation was due to unwarranted panic as clearly stated by the Japanese government itself and the UN. People with your same mentality and irrational fear caused those deaths.
Tepco didn’t told the true so even a model had failed. You cannot rewrite the story it is done. Check the recent studies and numbers about rising cancers.
Cite these studies. Spoiler: they do not exist.
Your statement about zero death was false. Even the last UNSEAR report is in total contradiction with that (248 occurrences with the word “cancer” in the last one). EU large scale studies about nuclear workers can be found here : https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 I can also provide studies specifically for Fukushima concerning thyroides, lung cancer and diabetic links.
There was lemmy in the 60s? /s
But I do agree if we find some way to deal with the nuclear waste nuclear energy would be perfect. I’m really hopeful for fusion research lately.
Nuclear waste is a largely solved issue. The volume of very radioactive waste is quite small, and safely contained with a variety of solutions.
It’s solved if your government gets off its ass about it. Reprocessing waste for reactors is one of the few places where nuclear makes sense. Way better than burying it for thousands of years.
Otherwise, the economics have ran past it. We have solutions without it; we just need to scale the up. There are a few other niches, like cargo ships, where they make sense. For general power use, no.
The issue is not the volume it is the duration.
TBH, nuclear waste is a political problem, not an engineering one. Finns figured it out, no reason other countries couldn’t.
Fusion of course is better (though some small amount of radioactive waste will still be produced due to neutron activation of the materials used in the equipment), but it seems like it’s been 10 years away for the past 60 years. And we really shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good—we need to phase out fossil fuels yesterday and fission is good enough for answering the needs of the industry; solar and wind is good enough for distributed residential power and also a good choice for poorer countries who lack the knowhow or even stability for safe operation of nuclear.
fusion isn’t gonna happen, how did Finland ‘solve’ nuclear waste?
Apparently ‘solved’ means ‘bury it in an underground vault’. Finland buries their nuclear waste. The U.S. had planned to do the same at Yucca Mountain, but political infighting canceled that plan, IIRC.
Fusion is all but guaranteed to work eventually. If a breakthrough was made today that makes it commercialy viable, it would be ten years before we see a reactor putting power on the grid.
It’s not something we want to hang our hopes on. ITER will probably work if nothing else gets there first, but we need to look at other things long before that comes online. There’s no reason to wait and every reason to go full speed on what we have.
ITER that thing is dead already. 1st estimation : 5 billions. Now : 19 billions. And Russians are involved. Delays are so huge that it will be over before to be born.
nuclear power should definitely be one of those technologies listed
The Problem with nuclear Power is, that there isn’t a guarantee for reasonable pricing. There simply isn’t any experience on how much it really costs to build new power plants.
If you want to take a deeper look into the topic: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/
Long-term not viable and lots of hidden costs.
Can you defend it on economic grounds, rather than outdated talking points used against Greenpeace in the 90s?
You mean like the economically grounded notion of having a survivable environment?
I mean that we have solutions that don’t have it’s history of cost and schedule overruns.
I’d reserve judgement on that until they start building grid level battery storage on a scale an order of magnitude bigger than current setups.
I won’t, because nuclear already proved it can’t do it, so we look elsewhere.
Flow batteries are not that hard to ramp up.
None of these options are “that hard”, but until some storage is built on the multi-gigawatt scale, any conjecture on real build cost is a waste of time.
Think in terms of probability, not absolute. I mentioned flow batteries because I think it’s the most promising and developed, but there are several others. If one doesn’t work, ten others are being pursued in parallel. Only one needs to work
In a five year time frame, we’ll probably have at least one. More likely three or four.
Nuclear, in contrast, has trouble pursuing multiple possibilities at once. It’s too expensive. A decade ago, it was the AP1000 design, which was supposed to avoid the purpose-built engineering that bogged down deployments in the past. That was a failure so hard that Westinghouse nearly collapsed permanently. Now it’s SMRs, and given the collapse of the project in Utah, it’s not looking good.
Why do we need gigawatt grid level storages?
What about decentralized storages, e.g. a battery in your home in conjunction with solar power, or using your car battery? A lot of the arguments against renewable energy comes from demanding the electricity grid to follow the same principals as it did under fossil fuels. But a fully renewable grid can be governed by different principles.
we have solutions that don’t have it’s history of cost and schedule overruns.
Which of those solutions are presently available for large scale implementation, and guarantees baseload coverage with no significant CO2 emissions?
In a sufficiently large grid you will always have wind and in a global grid you’d also reliably have solar as base load.
Furthermore the base load can be reduced significantly with smart sheduling of energy usage.
Finally nuclear is no gurantee of baseload coverage. Nuclear power plants require a lot of water for cooling, like all thermal power plants do. With climate change the reliability of rivers providing enough water and the water being cool enough to not cause an ecological desaster downstream is becoming less and less reliable.
Many nuclear power plants at supposedely stable rivers had to be partially or fully shut down in the last summers. Nuclear power under climate change is not a stability factor. It is a risk factor to the grid.
In a sufficiently large grid you will always have wind and in a global grid you’d also reliably have solar as base load.
Yes, except even with an interconnected European grid we’re still not there. While I can’t speak for how much landmass needs to be covered, we need to expand the capacity of the grid quite a bit. I’m not sure where the bottleneck in Germany is now, but a few years ago Danish wind power couldn’t be exported much further than Hamburg. Since then the Bundesnetzagentur seems to have been handing out expansion permits left and right, but a grid expansion just across the EU sounds like a fever dream.
Furthermore the base load can be reduced significantly with smart sheduling of energy usage.
Sure, and we’re being “motivated” by paying a larger transmission fee during the evening peak in Denmark. But still I haven’t heard of people doing much more than not running their dryer during peak or maybe scheduling their EV’s charging later. For smart grids to actually work we need distributed energy storage. People still need heating during peak. And as I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, storage is expensive. What I wrote about was almost going off-grid, which is insanely expensive, but storage will still be too expensive for most and impractical for many. So most people will just pay the increased price for the power, and not make the huge investment in storage.
Finally nuclear is no gurantee of baseload coverage. Nuclear power plants require a lot of water for cooling, like all thermal power plants do. With climate change the reliability of rivers providing enough water and the water being cool enough to not cause an ecological desaster downstream is becoming less and less reliable.
Firstly, that depends on the implementation. You mention rivers, and your instance is a “.de”, which explains your argument. But in a country like Denmark we have enough coast to build nuclear power there. Which was what was proposed back the 70s and early 80s.
Secondly, the time when we require the most power generated by power plants is during winter. As you yourself pointed out, the shutdowns occurred during the summer.
Don’t let the deliberate sabotage by german politics distract from the necessity and ability to change the grid.
In a well interconnected European grid with extensive use of Offshore Wind potentials we can easily get there. It is not a lack of viability but a lack of political will. If you look at Germany, the largest donors to political parties are usually property investment groups and fossil (including nuclear until recently) power companies.
Putting nuclear plants at the cost comes with it’s own can of worms. Corrosion, Floodings, Coastal stability… And in regards to the grid you run into the same issues like with offshore wind. Finally with the increase in temperatures through climate change the energy demand in summer will also rise, with the need to actively cool houses more and more. In the southern US, the grid usually fails in summer, not in winter.
Building a huge concrete plant has lots of CO2 emissions. Why wouldn’t you include the construction in the CO2 emissions budget? Also, the waste heat from the plant fucks up a local waterway. It’s required to be on a body of water, and no one is going to want to swim there anymore.
Windmills? You just stick them where there’s wind. They don’t bother anything. Construction is minimal and you can still use the land for something else.
Wind turbines come with their own environmental impact due to construction, among that is CO2. Besides that they are highly visible, to the point where I can’t look at the horizont where I live, in any direction, without seeing a few, but most importantly: they can’t provide baseload coverage.
Wind and solar are nice ideas, but if you want to cover baseload they’re just not up to it.
Please allow me to try to explain with an example. During the months of December and January, it is quite normal to experience several periods of no wind for up to a week in Denmark. During the same period there’s 6 or 7 hours between sunrise and sunset.
Let’s assume that a Danish citizen is average. Avg yearly electricity use is 1.6MWh, and sorry my sources will be mostly in Danish, https://www.bolius.dk/saa-meget-el-vand-og-varme-bruger-en-gennemsnitsfamilie-279. That gives us an avg daily usage of 4.4kWh. During december usage will be 30% above average, as per previous link. That gives us a daily avg usage of 5.7kWh in December.
During this period in 2022, solar accounted for 0.6% of the electricity produced in Denmark, https://www.verdensmaal.org/nyheder/danmark-blandt-eus-tre-solkonger. So at 0.3 kWh out of the 5.7kWh it’s close to insignificant. But let’s subtract that and now we’re at 5.4kWh.
That’s 5.4kWh we need to get from somewhere, the wind turbines are barely rotating. Where do we get it? Assuming a household of 4 people that’s 22kWh daily. That’s where we need powerplants. And personally I prefer nuclear to coal, gas and “carbon neutral” materials like straw and wood, for the CO2, as well as the particulate, emissions. The latter of which, is the cause of about 9mil deaths each year globally, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide.
What about battery storage? Presently there’s one vendor of flow batteries in Denmark, https://www.visblue.com/, and while I can’t post link to a price, I have been quoted 400-500000 DKK, 50-67000€, for a 10kWh solution, by the company that services my wind turbine.
That’s 50k€ for half a day’s worth of electricity storage. Let’s go back to the example of no wind for a week, you’d need to spend 700k€ for each household at that price. And no, we don’t need to have each house have storage installed, and yes, the price will probably be considerably less with different vendors and larger solutions. But it doesn’t change the fact that you need to store at least 7x5.4kWh per Dane in order to not need to get electricity elsewhere.
Larger grids have been argued. I don’t have the stamina to go into detail on that. Suffice it to say, that describing the investment needed, to make that somewhat viable, as astronomical would be playing it down.
If you stipulate no significant co2 emissions, then you can’t have nuclear, either.
Let’s say we want to build 100 new nuclear reactors (this would double what the US currently has). It takes about 200,000 tons of concrete to build one reactor. Concrete production outputs about 900kg of co2 per ton.
Cars output 1.5B tons of co2 per year. For the co2 cost of building 100 nuclear plants, we could continue driving ICE cars for an additional 12 years.
This doesn’t even take into account steel production, which also has significant co2 output.
20 years ago a few key technologies were still missing, like grid storage battery technology. But there are multiple promising ways now. Unfortunately lack of massive funding for research and development and patents means we’ll have to wait another 20 years to produce them really cheaply on the free market. Otherwise it would be unfair to the poor inventor! /s
Aren’t flywheel energy storages (invented by James Watt and improved over time) not suitable energy storages for electrical grids?
No, flywheel is not cheap enough and too complicated. Pumped hydro is cheapest, but only available at very few location. Lithium batteries are a waste or misappropriation (lithium should be recycled for mobile use) and there aren’t enough.
The two battery types that seem to work are liquid metal batteries that are made out of dirt cheap and abundant materials (although there might be problems there still), and flow batteries. Kite power also seems to provide more energy for less material costs (no huge foundations and towers needed).
There are also gravity batteries: https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/06/this-disused-mine-in-finland-is-being-turned-into-a-gravity-battery-to-store-renewable-ene
The gravity energy system would be able to store 2MW of power and integrate into the local energy grid. … Scientists from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) found that the world’s abandoned mine shafts could store up to 70TWh of power - roughly the equivalent of global daily electricity consumption.
Also in Finland, but different technology “sand batteries” https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520
Finnish researchers have installed the world’s first fully working “sand battery” which can store green power for months at a time.
The developers say this could solve the problem of year-round supply, a major issue for green energy.
Using low-grade sand, the device is charged up with heat made from cheap electricity from solar or wind. The sand stores the heat at around 500C, which can then warm homes in winter when energy is more expensive.
While I think there is still no working production model, Iron Salt Batteries are very promising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_redox_flow_battery
There are different options, not each one is suitable for every place, but seams possible that combination can help us achieve needed reduction in fossil fuel usage when sun is down and no wind.
Thanks for the links, sand sounds interesting. I believe gravity batteries outside of pumped hydro just need too much “structure” to store energy and then just have too little capacity. Unfortunately there is sometimes a little bit too much hype about cool ideas that don’t pan out. There is also an idea I think for an electric train / rail cars full of ballast being driven up a rail on a hill and then moving down to release electricity. Just a lot of effort.
And yeah thermal batteries should solve one of the biggest consumers, heating. Lots of possibilities. Molten salt works also. I think if you just use water to store heat for the winter you need about the size of a big Olympic swimming pool under your house. But with wind instead of solar you don’t even need to store that much.
An important thing I believe is that we have nearly unlimited access to energy with solar and wind turbines / kite power. It requires massive production efforts but you can extract so much energy from sunshine that efficiencies of batteries aren’t even that important. Just that you can use cheap and sustainable materials, can recycle them, and can have enough energy density.
So the possibilities are definitely there, but we really neglected to push R&D and massively fund multiple startups for each technology. And we need to suspend patents or drastically shorten their lifespan to like 4 years or so.
The main grid storage tech I’ve heard about recently relies on decade-old Nissan Leaf EV batteries that can be purchased second hand pretty cheaply (in comparison to brand new cells). Pretty neat way to repurpose them IMO.
It’s profitable, so I’m assuming it should be reasonably affordable for utility companies or local municipalities to build and own grid storage facilities in the near future
To be fair, a lot of the new technologies people talk about regarding this are some of these things, but improved. For instance, better batteries or solar cells, recent improvement to which has already had a pretty notable impact (for instance, better solar panels making solar energy cheaper, which makes even entities concerned only with profit more likely to adopt it.)
Usually it’s just an excuse to do nothing, hoping for a magical technology that saves us from all our problems
Thorium reactors are the Hyperloop of energy generation!
HEMP
