Americans' need to understand that you consume way more energy than is humanely necessary. It's not a pleasant conversation for Americans to hear, but America's energy consumption is entire unsustainable and going to be a major problem going forward.
Tackling the Commodity Problem and the Climate Problem have to go hand in hand.
We can't continue to let countless pointless video game and video hosting servers running, endlessly burning coal.
We can't let specialty cannabis and organic lettuce gardens continue to grow massive crops during the winter.
We can't pick and choose which parts of the world get more comforts than the other.
We can't pick and choose which parts of the world have to risk nuclear meltdown or runoff.
When we say that wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, tidal, etc combinedcould never keep up with global energy demands we need to stop acting like our demand for energy is the independent variable.
The human race needs to stop its endless consumption.
I mean, countless studies have shown that combined wind, solar, and hydro could meet current energy demand. Which doesn't make it a challenge as if we should keep up current demand hahaha. We have an ethical obligation to reduce our human footprint as much as possible; half of species are gone extinct. We are not being good members of the community.
Sure thing star_wraith! Asking for the source is better than that user running around downvoting literally every comment that has a perspective other than ‘nuclear power is the only possible path forward, I swear’ hahaha uuuuh
It’s kinda country-by-country. Usually the inventory studies are done on the national scale. I remember seeing one for my country and it was like ‘whoooa, we actually could do it?!!’ Canada has nuclear power, but 58% of our power comes from hydro.
But here’s one looking at all of north america which finds, even when you consider the economics of doing it under capitalism, it’s possible to do it by 2030. It is entirely technlogically and economically feasible, even in the most consumptive place on earth, it is only a matter of political will. This is a really good, in-depth study.
There are, genuinely, countless studies like this haha there exists multiple for every country and region of the world. It’s well-established science now, even though the literature is as pay-walled and difficult to access as always hahah. This one’s free tho :)
When we say that wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, tidal, etc combined could never keep up with global energy demands we need to stop acting like our demand for energy is the independent variable.
wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, tidal, etc combined could never keep up with global energy demands
This is false. Solar alone is more than enough energy. An hour of solar energy is equal to current global annual energy consumption. Two months of sunlight incident on land (assuming 5 hours of sunlight a day on average, at 1kw per square meter) amounts to more energy than remains in fossil fuel reserves.
If anything, though, this is an even worse indictment of capitalism than the idea that current energy usage is unsustainable--we could be powering our society in a way that doesn't wreck the entire planet, but we don't because it's cheaper not to.
When we say that wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, tidal, etc combined could never keep up with global energy demands we need to stop acting like our demand for energy is the independent variable.
NUCLEAR HOT TAKE INCOMING
Nuclear power is libertarian nonsense.
Americans' need to understand that you consume way more energy than is humanely necessary. It's not a pleasant conversation for Americans to hear, but America's energy consumption is entire unsustainable and going to be a major problem going forward.
Tackling the Commodity Problem and the Climate Problem have to go hand in hand.
We can't continue to let countless pointless video game and video hosting servers running, endlessly burning coal.
We can't let specialty cannabis and organic lettuce gardens continue to grow massive crops during the winter.
We can't pick and choose which parts of the world get more comforts than the other.
We can't pick and choose which parts of the world have to risk nuclear meltdown or runoff.
When we say that wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, tidal, etc combined could never keep up with global energy demands we need to stop acting like our demand for energy is the independent variable.
The human race needs to stop its endless consumption.
I mean, countless studies have shown that combined wind, solar, and hydro could meet current energy demand. Which doesn't make it a challenge as if we should keep up current demand hahaha. We have an ethical obligation to reduce our human footprint as much as possible; half of species are gone extinct. We are not being good members of the community.
deleted by creator
Sure thing star_wraith! Asking for the source is better than that user running around downvoting literally every comment that has a perspective other than ‘nuclear power is the only possible path forward, I swear’ hahaha uuuuh
It’s kinda country-by-country. Usually the inventory studies are done on the national scale. I remember seeing one for my country and it was like ‘whoooa, we actually could do it?!!’ Canada has nuclear power, but 58% of our power comes from hydro.
But here’s one looking at all of north america which finds, even when you consider the economics of doing it under capitalism, it’s possible to do it by 2030. It is entirely technlogically and economically feasible, even in the most consumptive place on earth, it is only a matter of political will. This is a really good, in-depth study.
A Techno-Economic Study of an Entirely Renewable Energy-Based Power Supply for North America for 2030 Conditions
There are, genuinely, countless studies like this haha there exists multiple for every country and region of the world. It’s well-established science now, even though the literature is as pay-walled and difficult to access as always hahah. This one’s free tho :)
Here's a very condensed meta-analysis that includes 139 countries
Yes but just central planned community/localized gardening would reduce our energy demands.
A lot of ecological repair work would also involve less time in front of a computer and more time outside planting things and digging trenches.
Ideally, we would have armies of people leading ducks through zucchini gardens.
My dream job is using my degree in ecology to help heal the land all around me. Unfortunately, no one's paying for it.
https://www.patreon.com/monarchlabsllc?fan_landing=true
Counterpoint , astronomical amounts of power will be needed for desalination and carbon capture technologies to stop climate change.
Counter-counter-point: Trees don't need no power.
deleted by creator
Thank you. I'm quoting this to my family.
I agree with all of that. But that just isn't enough without nuclear.
This is false. Solar alone is more than enough energy. An hour of solar energy is equal to current global annual energy consumption. Two months of sunlight incident on land (assuming 5 hours of sunlight a day on average, at 1kw per square meter) amounts to more energy than remains in fossil fuel reserves.
If anything, though, this is an even worse indictment of capitalism than the idea that current energy usage is unsustainable--we could be powering our society in a way that doesn't wreck the entire planet, but we don't because it's cheaper not to.
Which is why we need nuclear...