No.1332129[Last 50 Posts]
This thread is dedicated to our uyghur comrades assuring us the path to energy transition, as stated by the IEA>The world will almost completely rely on China for the supply of key building blocks for solar panel production through 2025. Based on manufacturing capacity under construction, China’s share of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer production will soon reach almost 95%. Today, China’s Xinjiang province accounts for 40% global polysilicon manufacturing. Moreover, one out of every seven panels produced worldwide is manufactured by a single facility.https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d2ee601d-6b1a-4cd2-a0e8-db02dc64332c/SpecialReportonSolarPVGlobalSupplyChains.pdf
As for the news, Europe's current heatwave is described as 'the most extreme event ever seen in European climatology' by Climatologist Maximiliano Herrera (see picrel)https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/4/2145284/-Europe-s-heatwave-is-the-most-extreme-event-ever-seen-in-European-climatology
Recent IPCC reports on climate change:<Physical Science Basishttps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport_small.pdf<Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilityhttps://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf<Mitigation of Climate Changehttps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
Synthesis report is coming in march.
And the UNDRR report<Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022 https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2022
Also posting this article for the anti-renewable schizos and nuclear cultists who will inevitably come shit in the threadhttps://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/who-hates-renewables
Energy Science MSc guy with physics background. AMA. I will most certainly not reply.
The uyghur wordfilter has broken my brain.
Nuclear power is without a doubt a necessary component for energy production with low carbon emissions. That derisive remark points towards a level of denialism.
Renewable energies and nuclear power are very compatible, there is no reason for your pre-emptive aggression.
your brain didn't need any help getting broken
This. Nuclear energy needs to be a stop-gap between unrenewable biofuels and whatever combination of green energy we transition toward AT MINIMUM and will probably maintain an important role in energy production forever. We should however use as much renewable energy as possible if only because in the very long term nuclear is not renewable.
The question for nuclear power will be if it will contiunue to provide that 10-15% of world electricity or not. It is simply too costly and creates many unsolvable problems. Beyond that, what is really denilialism is the fact that it is mostly touted by Bill Gates and other assholes that love centralization and can easily invest (get gov funds) in these.
And I will add something to that. Nuclear power was here for 70 years and didnt manage to scale. Costs werent cut. Instead, we got disasters and more and more money for safety.
On the other hand, wind and solar power continue to get cheaper and cheaper. And will continue to get cheaper and cheaper.
Heavy water nuclear reactors can run on unenriched uranium and even nuclear waste from other facilities. The enormous initial cost of heavy water can be offset over time and scale by the fact that heavy water is actually produced by the light water dilutant being steadily converted to more heavy water during operation.>>1332184
Porkies have been deeply unwilling to invest into serious projects that need doing for quite a while now unless they can pull stupid scams with it.
read my response to your drivel in the last thread and shut the fuck up once and for all, humanitiesanon
>>1332184>Nuclear power was here for 70 years and didnt manage to scale
The fact that France gets 75% of its power from nuclear sources implies that the problem isn't with nuclear energy itself
>>1332184>nuclear power didn't overtake fossil fuels because its just not viable
you are babbling like an incoherent moron with no grounding in reality
also, i am not sold entirely on the Small Modular Reactor idea but they bring up the very valid point that nuclear reactors actually have horrid cost efficiency because they often aren't built as a repeated design but rather as individual projects. We have decades of safety and other improvements that we could be implementing on larger scale to big plant reactors too, bringing up cost efficiencies dramatically.
What's not viable is to produce each reactor as if it were a prototype, which is kind of the state of the power sector.
This doesnt mean anything at all. AGAIN. Nuclear power is TOO costly and costs didnt go down. By the same metric btw, since wind is 50% of Denmark electricity and growing (instead of falling) then there is no problem with wind too.
BTW, France, just as USA, Russia, China etc, put enormous amounts of money into nuclear weapons which pretty much also subsidized nuclear power.>>1332208
YOU are babbling like an incohgerent moron without any response at all. I bet you watched a youtube video and now consider yourself an expert on energy systems.
>>1332215>I bet you watched a youtube video and now consider yourself an expert on energy systems.
considering your stances on this topic, i feel like you yourself have yet to read anything at all. incoherency was not meant to sound derogatory, it was an assessment.
Your assessment is bad then. Nuclear power is costly. Yet noone wants to debate this but continue telling us bullshit about renewables.
Nuclear energy is mostly the stop-gap towards fusion energy.
We have enormous untapped reserves of nuclear fuels that could last us hundreds of thousands of years if we need. It probably won't take that long to make fusion work.
Technically renewables are not renewable in the long term either, because it's all powered by the sun which will run out eventually too. That's why we want to go for fusion because that will last for billions of years if you count the hydrogen reserves in the gas giants in our solar system.
>We should however use as much renewable energy as possible
No mindlessly maxing out renewables won't be economic, you have to use it when appropriate. The big strength of renewables are in the role of providing electricity when raw power is not the main goal and for more remote places where the electricity grid isn't very efficient.>>1332184>Nuclear power was here for 70 years and didnt manage to scale.
Nuclear was mainly blocked by political opposition.>>1332180>The question for nuclear power will be if it will contiunue to provide that 10-15%
No the share of nuclear power will have to rise significantly if we want to get away from fossil fuel
>t is simply too costly and creates many unsolvable problems.
You can repeat this as much as you want it's still wrong.
Nuclear power is cheaper than most other forms of energy, and the nuclear waste problem has been solved, it turns out that drilling a deep borehole like what's used for oil and gas, is the perfect solution for storing nuclear waste. It can be done directly at the nuclear power plant which eliminates the need for castor transport.
>>1332222>Nuclear was mainly blocked by political opposition.
Nuclear was blcoked by political opposition spawned by disaster upon disaster. It makes sense that people wont like it when they know that at some point they will be forced to abandon their homes in a 100km radius for a few centuries.
>No the share of nuclear power will have to rise significantly if we want to get away from fossil fuel
Again, nuclear energy cannot scale. This will not happen however much you find amazing the fact that the energy of the fission of an atom is enormous. At best, what you will see is a continuation of the 10-15% of electricity continuing to be supplied by nuclear power. Renewables are enough and the technology is already here. What's missing is the political will to invest on those since your pensions have already invested in oil.
>You can repeat this as much as you want it's still wrong.
No I am sorry. You are deluded if you think nuclear power is cheap. It is simply not. If it was, it would be in many more places. After all, who gives a fuck about what people want? Btw, did those nice LCOEs include the 50 billions of decontaminating after a meltdown?
As for the nuclear waste. I dont find it as a really huge problem but it is not solved still.
Nulcear power is cheaper than most other sources of energy
>>1332231>disaster upon disaster.
If you look at the data of actual life lost and destruction. Nuclear power safety is on paar with river-dams for hydro power. Both are one of the safest forms of power generation.
>Again, nuclear energy cannot scale.
You keep repeating this like a mantra, but it's wrong. There are no technical reasons stopping us from increasing nuclear power production.
The main opposition is political. There are entrenched monopolies that do not wish competition. There are of course ideologically motivated people. Economic structures probably play a role as well capitalists are too focused on short term profits to do nuclear power where projects can run up to 60 years.
>decontaminating after a meltdown?
Those were teething problems from early designs, new reactor designs use already molten fuel and hence meltdown isn't really a factor. We have to clean up what's left from historic failures, but that's nothing compared to what it will cost to fix climate change.
>what people want
people want lots of energy for cheap, with low carbon emissions, nuclear power is a good option for that, especially when combined with other forms of power generation like renewables
> the fact that the energy of the fission of an atom is enormous
yes energy density of nuclear fuel is in deed enormous
>>1332231>spawned by disaster upon disaster
sources please. do they match the disasters of fossil fuel? why is it, then, that fossil fuels have had an unbroken chain of year-on-year increases in usage? maybe it is not disasters that are the cause, but the role of popular narratives - which have no mandate to adhere to reality
>>1332245>By that logic entropy it exist so we shouldn't bother creating energy in the first place.
No nothing of the sort.
By that logic we have to be honest that renewable energy sources are not eternal either.
>>1332129>Europe's current heatwave
Uh, does that mean Europe's not gonna freeze over this winter?
Probably, although it could still get quite cold in the coming months. It's pretty bad for Russia now because they hoped a rigorous winter could demoralize European countries from supporting Ukraine, on the other hand they will get some new arable lands in Siberia so there's a silver lining to this.
Now post data on China's coal sector
do you want steel? because that's how you get steel.
What is this, the 1400s?>>1332334
No more steel by 2060!
>>1332279<under certain circumstances
If you do actual realistic cost calculations, nuclear power is cheaper than most other forms of energy production.
Consider that new liquid fuel reactors increase their energy return on energy investment to a staggering factor of 200. This is an important metric because a high return on energy investment, makes it easy to increase power-generation. You have to spend power to build more power-plants, the return factor is the hard limit for how much capacity you can add.
Renewables have a very low rate of energy returns (somewhere around 3 to 10 if you account for the cost of batteries that store power to bridge intermittency) and that makes it very hard to increase production. They need something like nuclear power to subsidize their production expansion.
That means in the real world where you want non-carbon emitting sources for energy to grow dramatically to scale into a fossil fuel replacement, you can't realistically do self- expansion of renewable-energy. You need nuclear power generation to power their production expansion.
>>1332365>realistic cost calculations
Show them to me
this is a complex topic I'll make new thread later
Yes, later, you'll make a new thread.
How long it's gonna take though? 20 years? Is it gonna be over budget? But don't worry I'll drop by to prove you wrong if it's ever finished.>>1332401
No calculations there. Yes the coal plants alternators and steam turbines can be used for hot things like burning hot nuclear fuel rods, but is it something more than a giga cope from nuclear lobbyists?
That's more the issue of "china at least nominally plans to phase out coal for nuclear because they realize fossil fuels are unsustainable"
China plans better than other countries yes, but they are constrained by capitalism, (a mode of production they share) and other rocky ideological stuff I don't fully understand.
What I know is what it takes to build nuclear reactors, there's nothing socialism magic can do here, it's limited by the number of engineers, how much uranium you can get, and in the end, the money they can spend.
Planners in China know all of this, and they aim for 8% of nuclear in the long term, but they have their lobbies and own industry workers pushing for that number. In reality, it's likely nuclear will die, it should be buried by renewables.
Kinda sleazy to not post a link to the new thread in the old thread dog.
>>1332521> it's likely nuclear will die, it should be buried by renewables
> Also posting this article for the anti-renewable schizos and nuclear cultists who will inevitably come shit in the thread> https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/who-hates-renewables
subjective hand-wringing, doesn't address anything beyond "trust me bro". Try harder.
It is highly probable. Believe it or not, outside youtube, more research focuses on renewables because they clearly disrupt the market and don't deny thousands of sq kilometers in the "very very rare" yet once in 20 years scenario of meltdown.
One more thing that some slow people might not get is that photovoltaics are advancing exactly how electronics advanced because it is basically the same tech. There is something like Moore's law in solar pv too. On the other hand, nuclear is still stuck in the 50s. A lot of cement, steel and steam. You cant really cut costs in that.
You are a soyjack. This >>1333218 >>1332279
says it pretty clearly that you've brought us some kind of profits calculation instead of actual costs.
I didn't post that one but he is right nevertheless. Your are not educated on a matter you clearly don't understand and you fall for porky bullshit.
So. Hydrogen is pretty much a bust without nuclear power, anything outside of producing hydrogen through nuclear power is about as dirty as coal burning for electrolysis>>1332756> the utility of soothing platitudes to baizuo
is zero, and you're dumb as a rock if you think otherwise..
Nuclear can use heat for splitting water(technically steam) directly into hydrogen and oxygen via thermolysis. Thermal recuperators have an efficiency of 90%, so it would be a very efficient energy conversion. It has high-temperature material requirements but would otherwise be technologically simple, and have massive throughput. This is a pretty sweet set up.
Solar concentration plants can also reach the temperatures for thermolysis of water. Off-shore windmill parks can use only electrolysis, which is more expensive than thermolysis, but it might still be worth it, because offshore windmills are a quick set up.
A Hydrogen infrastructure is nice because if you build a bunch of pipelines you get a decent amount of energy storage for free, you can put all the nuclear plants and windmill into the ocean where nobody will complain about it, and connected it via a h2 pipeline. You can convert it most efficiently into electricity with a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer, but a gas turbine or the boiler form an old coal plant will also work. As a bonus you get fuel for hydrogen powered heavy machinery and airplanes.
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FUCK
Hydrogen honestly comes with so many other technical problems, many of which simply cannot be physically resolved unless metallic hydrogen is metastable and also within the bounds of a controllable (ie, not gravitationally crushed) process.
Though I wonder: if everyone in the world were to switch to steam train from private transport, would this result in a net increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?
Remind me in 5 months. I will have time to do a serious report on this.
I suppose one (awkward) option might be a thermolytic process of cracking methane into hydrogen and amorphous carbon (instead of CO2) and then collecting residual heat but it's really not looking amazing.
i mean why use hydrogen for anything other than applications where you need a reducing agent (steel mills, ammonia, ect)? for energy storage just use pumped water, and also due to the electricity required it would probably be better to just use natural gas and eat the cost of needing to do carbon capture and storage
nuclear is good but the problem is that reactors are inherently pretty expensive to build. in the 80's it was the best option but nowadays solar and wind are several times cheaper. in the future it will likely be limited to areas where solar, wind, and hydro are impractical or ships (uusr had a few nuclear powered container ships before gorbachev fucked everything)
Nuclear isn't going to be viable economically or politically in till fusion is possible. At best you can build some nuclear planets in geographically stable locations with a non-existent population. Which I think should be done to fuel massive desalination plants but nuclear as the driving force for a zero carbon future? Ain't going happen till the technology gets there.
My main disagreement with nuclear advocates is they have it in reverse. Renewables as a technology works now and can be deployed quickly and safely. It's not tied to a fuel source it just passively generates electricity. It's also far easier to get people to agree to slap solar on their roofs or build a windfarm near them. Even with the astroturfed anti-renewable hysterics. Nuclear plants take decades and you'll have locals(rightly) fighting you ever step of the way. Existing nuclear plants shouldn't be shut down and the technology absolutely should be invested in heavily. Fusion would be an energy revolution once made viable, but it's in its infancy right now.
Current existing nuclear plants have many of the same downsides of fossil fuels. Constant resource extraction, toxic waste by-products, and a finite source of said fuel mostly located in poor countries that get exploited for that resource. >>1333311>>1333385
Green hydrogen through electrolysis looks promising. Which is another thing about renewables is as an energy infrastructure it is very adaptable and can be harvested in many ways. Solar, wind, hydrogen, and anaerobic digesters which take food waste and produces organic fertilizer and natural gas. All things that can be produced on a consumer scale and be scaled up for industrial proposes. Outfit residential areas with solar, build an offshore wind farm for desalination. Use the water from the desalination plants for hydro reservoir battery. Pay residential areas for food waste for the anaerobic digester and now have natural gas for hot water and cooking for the residential areas and you can pipe the organic fertilizer and water to farms. All this technology exist all it takes is for us to implement it.
On the so-called "advanced German renewables" policy.https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/01/16/greta-vs-the-working-class/
> So desperate is Germany’s energy crisis that even Green Party ministers in the coalition government, usually implacably opposed to all things fossil fuels, are on board with the mine’s expansion. This is ‘the wrong symbol to protest against’, said Germany’s Green economy minister last week, arguing that the mine was needed to make the energy crisis ‘manageable’.
Renewables are a fantasy. Drill, baby, drill
No serious “Marxist” would claim nuclear energy will somehow magically fix the ecological crisis anyway. As I’ve said many times, the nerds on this board are Soviet LARPers first, political operatives second, and practical actors as a very distant and vague third. They shill nuclear energy at the expense of any other infrastructural, social, or incentive re-arrangement (I mean, other than the People’s State doing the same things our current state does) because doing so lets them fantasize about what they’d do if they were Stalin or whatever else nonsense.
You’d get very far if you accept they have no real interest in any sort of political work or actual change in the world. This is all very elaborate trolling anon.
Yeah! As of now, it's basically spring weather in Stockholm. But we're not even into February yet. It's totally possible for the weather to BAM! - hit us with snow that can last until May in north-facing slopes in the woods.
Being against heating would then just be simply bad optics. Trading the short term for the long term - or something!
And this is strange:
<Environmentalists have occupied the otherwise uninhabited village for two years in order to block the mine’s expansion, even building elaborate treehouses for themselves. Somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 demonstrators, including Greta, arrived in Lützerath last week to prevent the police from breaking up the encampment.
How TF did the authorities manage to NOT just torch the village after the eviction? Or not just make it as uncomfy as possible? :-/
No, the German Greens have just been openly bourgeois scum for a while now, and they’re the biggest lapdogs for the US in the entire German government
The most advanced [finance-capitalist] bourgeois position is pro-renewables. Marx nailed it long ago; its called creative destruction.
Welcome to the society of the spectacle:https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/greta-thunberg-detained-by-police-during-protest-against-demolition-of-l%C3%BCtzerath-mining-village/ar-AA16rBfg
<Police and protesters have accused each other of acting violently in Saturday's riots. The protesters claim that dozens have been injured, some seriously and potentially life-threatening, while authorities say 70 officers have been injured. Up to twelve demonstrators have been arrested.
This cult of the physical body may cause you to experience some apathy. Thank you for your attention.
>>1336392>You know she's on the side of the people because of how organic and popular the struggle for artificially impoverishing ourselves is.
Please spoon feed me.
Their side: Al Gore (from an oil fortune family), Larry Fink (largest equity fund in the Universe), and a cute little mascot made in a WEF PR laboratory
Our side: Leroy the trucker and Janice the secretary who has to drive 20 miles to work.
Who would you trust?
>>1336392> people in the poorest countries beginning to die of famine and drought from climate change >more worried about the threat to right for a small part of the population to consoooooooooooooom
most of the the changes could be done without really lowering the quality of life of most people even in the 1st world, >>1337526
the ecology movement wasn't started by them, the elite pandered to it but It was started by normal people who were tired of getting fucking poisoned, frank Herbert the author of dune did more to begin the ecology movement then al gore. global warming was discovered by a Soviet meteorologist
their side, oil porkeys coal mine owners
our side: fidel castro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8CnB8KWkaE
>>1337544> the ecology movement wasn't started by them
You are shifting the goal posts. This is a thread about *climate change*, not ecology per se.
And yes, the obsession with the climate change as apocalypse hypothesis has a deleterious effect on more important ecological problems. See Bjorn Lomborg for an explication of this dynamic.
>>1337586>this climate change denier schizo proves it isn't real
>>1337544> people in the poorest countries beginning to die of famine and drought from climate change
Famine and climate deaths are DRASTICALLY down over the course the twentieth century til now. According to the climate change alarmists, it should be the inverse. Why?
BTW, the famine deaths are way down mainly due to pesticides and fertilizers, which are made from fossil fuels.
>>1337544>most of the the changes could be done without really lowering the quality of life of most people even in the 1st world,
Source: trust me bro
wow anon, you are right, fossil fuels can be used to make useful products, nobody has ever known this before, climate change deboonked
>>1337609>wow anon, you are right, fossil fuels can be used to make useful products, nobody has ever known this before, climate change deboonked
I do enjoy not starving, yes
even if fossil fuels are essential for agriculture (i doubt that there is no alternative) we could/should still stop using them for everything possible
>>1337615>even if fossil fuels are essential for agriculture (i doubt that there is no alternative) we could/should still stop using them for everything possible
You sound like Pete Buttigieg. "Just buy a Tesla". He's a stupid snob.
The alarmists only have snobbery and the Protestant's guilty conscience.
Given that (a) 89% of all energy needs are supplied by fossil fuels, and (b) we should have been underwater by now, and (c) we aren't, then it follows that I'm going to be skeptical about destroying modern civilization and it's conveniences. I'm with Marx.
if we had decent public transit would sitting in a trollybus for half an hour be such a backslide in living standards? if we rode bicycles with electric motors on dutch style protected biking lanes instead of cars (most car trips in the us, are 6 miles or less, 15 minutes on a 25mph bike) would that be such a back slide? if we used heat pumps
instead of gas furnaces durable goods instead planned obsolesce trinkets designed to break, would that be a decline in the quality of life, is the giant vanity truck, the boomer mansion, the private jet of the oligarch, the numbers in the bank account of a chemical plant investor, worth the broiling of the 3rd world, the darkened future of all generations after this>?>>1337596
famine deaths have been increasing since the 2010s, and the only reason weather deaths are down is because early warning is better, there are more events every year, I don't think we can keep counting on the assumption that our ability to predict and respond to these events will outpace them getting worse for ever. >>1337615
Cuba moved its sector away from fossil fuels (by nescessity look into agro ecology)
honestly your response is better, why did I waste time thinking of a response to this idiot? I have thing to do today.
LMAO. You are calling Marx a capitalist.
how can you explain the fact that the last ten years have been the hottest on record if climate change isn't real lol
Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me you don't understand statistics.
The first NCAA Basketball championships were in 1939.
Also in 1939: "the highest scoring championships in history!!!"
The climate change chicken little ideology is the same old millenarian end-times bs that bible thumpers have been thumping about for 2000 years. Only the name of God that they nominally worship has changed, from JC to "Science!!!!".
The irony is exquisite.
Do you think we only started recording temperature in 2013 you actual dipshit
Let x = modern society's energy needs
Let y = the percentage of modern society's energy needs that can be fulfilled by unicornfarts [ "renewables", so called]
x > y.
If you think that the unicornfarts alone are good enough, then by definition you are a reactionary, because you think that pre-modern energy levels should be forced upon modern society.
On the other hand, if you think that the unicornfart industry should be subsidized in order to eventually take over the energy needs of society, then you are a capitalist ideologue betting on team a over team b.
If you are a capitalist ideologue then you are a reactionary.
tl;dr: you are a reactionary
Prove that X > Y or gtfo, Hazite
Won't need to, if the cucks for the unicornfart industry like you have their way. Of course, they have a deep bench – most of Wall Street, the entirety of the laptop class, the coastal petit-bourgeoisie, etc. etc.
Do you even Marx bro?
> For Marx, capitalism differs from earlier class systems in that it puts each member of the dominant class under strong pressures to change the techniques and organization of production. This pressure is revolutionary and not always to the benefit of each capitalist [not to mention each proletariat –ed.] because the resulting revolutions in production always ruin some fortunes as they build up others. But these pressures give ruse to the characteristic shaping of production under capitalist relations of production.
Go team A! boo, team B!
>>1337821> reactionary, because you think that pre-modern energy levels should be forced upon modern society.>he doesn't know about oil and fossil fuels falling eroi as the easy to extract supplies are exhausted
I don't know what "unicorn" farts you are talking about, we always advocated for energy production with a mix of solar wind, geothermal and case dependent nuclear and hydroelectric. >https://www.science.org/content/article/cuba-embarks-100-year-plan-protect-itself-climate-change
I guess Cuba is a team A capitalist country, a really committed one if their spending limited resources at this very difficult time to address something the supposedly only exists in the minds of WEF, MALTHUSIAN BILLGATES LARRY FINK, UN NWO.
Hey Malthusian unicornfart huffing anglo first worlders, how can you support your position when MARX HIMSELF WROTE
<I had resolved not to write to you until I could announce completion of the book, [Volume I of Capital] which is now the case. Nor did I wish to bore you by explaining the further delay, viz., carbuncles on my posterior and near the penis, the final traces of which are now fading but which made it extremely painful for me to adopt a sitting (hence writing) posture. I am not taking arsenic because it dulls my mind too much and I needed to keep my wits about me at least at those times when writing was possible
Basically you are REACTIONARY and BAD!!!! hehe, try harder plebs
People back then sure were stupid
are you the retard who was thumping that book by one of Hayek and friedmans buddies?
Fossil fuels aren't only used for energy. Transport, clothes, agriculture,.. Collapse is inevitable.
Y'all uyghurs know I literally snipped the passage of Marx's letter to Engles where he talks about his cock warts right?
>>1338279>Fossil fuels aren't only used for energy. Transport, clothes, agriculture,.. Collapse is inevitable.
their are alternatives, but it is a very difficult process, however
we try we succeed, humanity lives
we try we fail we die
we do nothing we die
Nuclear cucks loose again, maybe try loving renewables.
Well it doesn't matter in the end, the market has spoken and we are full on capitalism so no nuclear energy in the future. But you know maybe we can do le hecking AES and build inefficient machines that can explode and bankrupt our countries because socialism is when some bureaucrat dude decides the fate of millions of people after scrolling on reddit.
People like you give environmentalalism a bad name
Oh god I'm so sorry, I didn't think of the name of environmentalism, I'm gonna buy some green paint and write about this on the nearest transformer
I wonder if making all these new water bodies would be a way to lower sea levels? Or would it be negligible
Yeah its looking fucking bleak. If you haven't reached the point where this shit is just funny to you than you have my condolences
>>1372705>11.5 foot sea level rise
this is probably spectacle hyperbolizing tho no?
hello carl. a merry capitalocene to you
imo, finding humour in the absurdity of late stage capitalism and being optimistic about the future are not mutually exclusive
Incredibly based. Im not asking you to do the math to figure out the volume of water you've displaced here but I sure would like to see it
It's a given that the Thwaites Glacier will fall in the ocean at this point, the question is when, could be in the next months or in a few decades. The question is how much damage it will do to the neighboring glaciers when it's being dislodged, and the 3m rise is the worst case scenario. If we were smarter monkeys we'd do an engineering project to reinforce the glacier, even if it costs 1 trillion dollars it would be profitable because even 0.5m rise will really fuck things up, and barring this possibility we should do some work on all the vulnerable coasts in the world and displace people when it's impossible, or at least make plans to displace them for when this shit will go down.
>not a drop of rain for a month or more
The funny part is that many of my megalake projects will become real just from sea level rises. California will be underwater and all the regressive environmentalists who told me it's a bad idea to flood it on humanity's terms will lament the loss of san francisco bay's precious bracky water as they drown.
i live in texas and it was cold for only like a week lel. i have to wonder how hot the summer is going to get
Same here across the ocean, water levels are still very low and if we get another year like last year we're rpetty fucked I recon.
based glacier will finally rid the world of danes, scanians and the d*tch
What do you think about the great salt lake drying up?
My thoughts: it needs to get larger and recreate lake bonneville
It really shows how depraved capitalists are. We already know they are willing to destroy the environment for profits but this will be on a scale not seen in the US before right beside a major city and its entirely because farmers and ranchers are sucking up al the water
Youre not SERIOUSLY suggesting displacing kulaks in salt lake city and drowning extremely fertile land with a high agricultural output just to create a big giant lake in utah are you? How dare you!
>>1375053>read 'heal the planet with pods'
It's over, totally over, it never even began
yo but why is he wearing the flag of Imperial Japan?
Damn I recently watched the documentary on Three Miles Island, and when asked what were the radioactive emissions, the answer was "lol we don't know nobody had any high level detectors and the authorities were too busy lying to people or having their heads in their asses". Meanwhile in Chernobyl they actually took some measurements in the direct aftermath, so the 3.6 rongten not bad not good meme should really only apply to burgers.
To make it clear the corp operating the plant knew their employees had maxed out detectors around the facility, and were aware that the plant released a good amount of radioactive material in gaz form, but of course they were saying to the population nothing bad happened while communicating very little actual intel but very reassuring buzzwords to the government, many higher ups in said gov felt the whole nuclear industry was at stake so they relayed the bullshit without looking too much into it. In the end a lot of people probably got cancer and died, but in the American spirit, since they didn't do studies, it didn't happen (those guys were only mere workers and poor people anyway).
So today, people say "Three Miles Island wasn't bad, it ain't Chernobyl" Well yeah it fucking exploded, but for Chernobyl the government actually stepped in and even after the dislocation of the USSR numerous studies kept being going on and we know a few hundreds thousands got cancer because of it, and they were compensated. In the US it's >be american, >get shot with radiation, and nobody cares.
Reminds me of that time during COVID when farmers were dumping so much milk (cause capitalism) that pipes bursted, the land of milk and honey would rather starve it's population and the globle then waste a penny in profits
Again imperialism being one of the big causes, because the western fuckers keep subsidizing their own farming industry to heaven to keep it competitive with the rest forever, forcing southern agricultural enterprises into specialized varieties like cocoa, coffee or a plethora of varieties that are highly fluctuating on the market following the last consuming trend.
We really need to dismantle capitalism yesterday and put in place something at least not completely retarded.
Damn I need to read this book
It's like standard reading in burger public school.
It doesn't seem like it when I read what burgers write. Maybe most americans go to private schools where those commie books are forbidden? Well anyways thank gods I'm not born in this forsaken country.
Nah it's more like they don't pay attention most of the time and if they do they regard all literature in the abstract as if it was fiction. Probably also explains the propensity of holocaust deniers despite everyone reading some version of Anne Frank's diary.
ive opened up more to nuclear over time, but i still believe a lot of nuclear proponents are trying to apply a simplistic mathematical model to nuclear risk that is simply not applicable. The risks of nuclear are too complex to calculate. We're talking about an arbitrary risk of catastrophic damage to the whole world.
growing up, we were all taught that all the problems of the gilded age and great depression depicted in grapes of wrath were fixed magically by the new deal and postwar international american financial hegemony. i.e. once we had welfare, and once america got rich off of the interest from rebuilding europe through the marshall plan, capitalism was no longer bad! the end!
Literally this, I wish the new deal got obliterated instead of implemented and we'd probably see a United Socialist States of America, or that's what I hope would happen
How are you today?
>>1336153>socialist infrastructure project
The summary of the report is out bunkersistershttps://www.ipcc.ch/ar6-syr/
I think we have a shot at being below 2°C actually, with renewables exponentially going upward. Nukes and hydrogen are already obsolete memes for mass electricity production, countries just need to stop investing in those paper tech and go full on batteries, solar panels and windmills faster than the market will make them. Then the main hurdle becomes about how to get the rich countries to massively investing in the global south in projects to mitigate the effects of climate changes that will happen whatever we do, ether it is desalination plants, fire fighting capability, drought and flood management etc etc there are trillions of dollars worth of things we need to do.
Unique IPs: 60