this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2022
2 points (100.0% liked)
Announcements
23304 readers
3 users here now
Official announcements from the Lemmy project. Subscribe to this community or add it to your RSS reader in order to be notified about new releases and important updates.
You can also find major news on join-lemmy.org
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I couldn't agree more, it pains me to see this kind of thinking run rampant even among 'environmentalists', 'greens' and such. We're not going to cover the entire Sahara in solar panels or turbines anytime soon, so I think nuclear is a far better solution. (and let's not even talk about all the 'gravity batteries' and other bullshit all the Musk fanboys and imitators are pushing now)
I agree by and large, but pumped hydro storage is a tried and true technology which has already proven its worth.
Pumped hydro storage is an energy storage method, not energy generation. Its also the most common form of power grid energy storage, so I have no doubt that the countries that are still using nuclear are storing the excess there.
I'm simply responding to the comment which called "gravity batteries" bullshit.
People also forget the environmental impact of producing things like solar panels and wind turbines. There are now whole landfills full of wind turbine blades for example.
Those have environmental impacts?
I wonder what's the sources for this.
a few examples
https://honuaolabioenergy.com/environmental-impact-of-solar-panel-manufacturing/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
Wind power can be done in an environmentally friendly way wrt the equipment, it just currently isn't. Just like nuclear could be but currently isn't. Another problem with wind that no one ever talks about is that sucking that much energy out drastically alters weather patterns (in most but not all cases). Wind is crucial to how weather works. But even bring up the topic and you'd be called a tinfoil hatter.
More importantly than finding ways to generate more energy, we need to be using less. Grid energy itself encourages wastefulness. Homes need to be insulated. Unnecessary travel (such as office work, and yes even 'shopping') are practices that must be ended. Those 2 things alone would reduce energy usage by 80%+.
But anyways... Like I said, even mentioning such things gets people very hateful. They don't want to even consider change.
How so?
Using common metals for the blades and rare-earthless turbines for the generation, doing only small-scale installations such as on homes and distributing true excess through neighborhood microgrids (no supergrids). Also storing minor excess using flywheel or gravity batter rather than chemical battery. Most of these are systemic improvements and not specific to wind but I want to make sure you're not picturing giant wind farms. Because as I said in my other post the biggest problem is supergrid thinking.
To put a point on it, an efficient home can be powered by a single wind turbine and possibly a solar panel for heavy usage appliances such as laundry machines, which is another problem that can be mitigated with further simple engineering solutions.
Thanks. The reason for big turbines is because they are more efficient. You use less materials for more power. So you'll never convince an engineer of all this.
I wonder if there is a maximum size of turbine that can be built with steel, given how heavy it is. Wind might become a lot more expensive.
Which would not be a bad thing because the world needs to start converting to sea-swell power asap.
That's a misleading statement because the efficiency calculations are done with assumptions based on current load, usage patterns, and supergrid as prerequisites.
To do a proper efficiency calculation we need a page 1 rewrite of how we handle energy entirety, as I described. I can prove I'm right with maths.
Also, aluminum not steel. Because you only need 1 meter bladespan when only generating one household of energy.
As for industrial needs, they can be handled by nuclear. Trying to scale up wind or solar is just too environmentally destructive.
But again, the key here is not to keep generating more and more energy, or using existing base loads as a starting point, we need to reduce energy usage drastically. It's so wasteful right now.
Could be. At least for rural areas, small scale could be more efficent.
IIRC aluminium is never used for rotating parts because of the way it fatigues. After a certain number of strain cycles it will snap.
Yes but now this is a political issue. How are you going to stand between big business's and its thirst for AI? The usage is growing exponentially and IMO will soon be dominant and the rest of the economy becomes more efficient.
It has always been a political issue. We had 3 generations to fix the problem. Corruption and lack of leadership resulted in the massive failure mode we are experiencing.
Now we need drastic changes quickly. We could be completely fossil fuel free in 5 years, but we'd need to basically retool everything and a billion lifestyles would have to change. (worth pointing out that the change would result in much more comfortable, happy and healthy lives) Now you could argue that's impossible but I argue it's the only possibility. Business as usual WILL result in the collapse of society and over a billion lifestyles will have to change anyway. (worth pointing out that this forced change would result in uncomfortable unhappy and potentially unhealthy lives, and even many deaths) That's just the reality we live in.
Most of the worlds's society is collapsing. Much of the world is becoming uninhabitable. But only a small corner of the earth needs to remain prosperous, for the rich to keep living rich lives.
Since we're talking politics now, the solution is direct democracy, where the electorate can compel the government to make a certain law, or take certain measures. Major changes become possible which are impossible now.
Nothing which harms the powerful vested interests will ever happen without direct democracy. Today, governments can simply decline to do things which don't suit them, even if the electorate demands them.
Anyone who believes in any issue at all, your first priority is direct democracy. It is your new goal. Without it your protests are ignored. With it, you can directly change the world without even having to protest.
I don't think direct democracy is a good idea, at least not with our current structure. The problem is dumb and easily manipulated people, if you think them voting for representatives that work against their own best interests is bad wait until you see the damage done by voting for actual laws against their best interest. I'll even give an example: prop 22 in California. There are so many other examples but that one is just so clear cut and over the top.
What I think is better is decentralized federated models. The USA was originally a confederation and then federation of States. It's in the name. Thing is, back then states were only expected to be a couple million or less citizens. Now cities are that size. And yet even today there are states with less than 500k citizens.
I think a restructuring based on population and land area (territory) is in order.
It's ok if a small town votes that trans people can't use a certain bathroom, or they vote that some race is not allowed to move in. But when such laws affect large land masses or large populations then there is a problem.
Things like air particulates affect the entire globe, that should be governed at a global level. There are all kinds of things in between.
These bad laws happen with elected representatives too, but worse. At least with direct democracy, laws will not be made which are against the majority's best interest, and laws have a legitimate mandate.
For example it's hard to imagine a direct democracy starting a war of convenience, like representative democracies frequently do and are doing right now. All the most egregious crimes of government would stop.
But the quality of all the little laws is debatable. I would argue it's higher under DD but I can see why some people disagree.
But it's hard to discuss very specific examples, because they are always cherry-picked.
Finally, there are several forms of DD and the Californian style is probably the least beneficial.