this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
19 points (71.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43731 readers
1312 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

My Views: I would love it if Solar, Hydro and Wind and other renewable sources of energy + Non Renewable Nuclear were to provide enough energy reliably to completely replace fossil fuels, but I know it's not a feasible solution at least at this point. And maybe it will never be. Renewable sources of energy are highly dependent on some metal mining (some are rare metals) and I doubt if the prices of those metals would go lower as the demand for those renewable sources of energy sky rockets. i.e., It's a non-linear equation, the price of renewables will not remain the same if we want to meet 100% of our energy needs from renewables. So, Just Stopping Oil is a pretty stupid idea concocted by people who have a much better standard of living than me.

Skip This if you must: As an Indian, I can speak for 1.4B people (I asked) when I say that, no matter how much pressure developed nations impose on India and countries like India, we will still keep using the least costliest source of energy, because we too want nice things and we too want our women to be liberated from cow dung/wood stoves and from the burden of washing clothes and utensils. So yeah, there is no way bar great scientific innovation which will phase out fossil fuels at least in the near future and perhaps ever.

PS: I don't like fossil fuels, I don't like the pollution or the effect it has on the environment and I wish they could be replaced by something renewable, but I just don't like the chances of that happening.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

If we spent 10% of the renewable effort towards nuclear, the cheapest electricity wouldn't be gas or coal anymore.

So yea, poorer countries with larger populations need to stop being blamed for trying to have a good life, when it's the rich countries chasing the shiny new thing that keeps us harming the environment

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I love Nuclear, what's absolutely stupid about some climate activists is their opposition to it. I mean, it's the cleanest and the least deadly form of energy. Let's hope someday we will reach enough efficiency that fusion energy would be feasible, it's absolutely everything you can wish for and more. Literal free energy! We have it, it has generated energy, but it has generated less energy than we put into it if I am not wrong, would be absolutely stunning if we can increase it's efficiency. This is the dream!

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately Fusion is too far in the future to solve climate change. There are still a bunch of hurdles we need to pass to start making feasible commercial reactors, so investment into other fields is necessary for the short term.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately Fusion is too far in the future to solve climate change

I did a small project once for my school long ago, do you think it's more a matter of sci fi at this point than actual reality?

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I think that we will reach net energy output within 30 years, with another 30 to actually scale that into a usable reactor, then another 30 to actually start using it widespread, and that's assuming that costs continue to decrease on things like superconductors, and we get our tritium supply chain to exist. I'm a little biased as a student going into the field, but I'm hopeful.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)