this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2185 points (94.1% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2605 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't imagine a future without solar, wind, and nuclear power.

not unless we find out we are wrong about thermodynamics.

[–] freecandy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wind and Solar are "renewable" to a certain scale. If you dump gigantic wind farm in the middle of a jet stream, for example, you can impact downstream climate cycles.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

that's why we could be aware of all the externalities.

solar could be deployed on the ocean but that will certainly lower sea temperatures.

let's terraform intentionally rather than just accidentally.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don't need to imagine a future without nuclear in the mix - there are plenty of places doing fine with renewables and without coal or nuclear right now.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] zik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

For example South Australia - no coal since 2016, no nuclear ever, runs mostly on a mix of renewables - solar and wind with batteries and transient gas for in-fill.

Edit: thanks to whoever downvoted my verified statement of fact (see below)

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] zik@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So I looked in the document and it agrees with my point. The most recent stats for South Australia are 8977 GWh of renewable energy and 5717 GWh non-renewable gas energy. You'll note the gas use is dropping pretty rapidly as they put more renewables on.

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok, so from your point of view 40% fossil fuels is still doing fine? I interpreted your original comment to mean they were doing 100% or close to it in renewables. Then I misunderstood.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's just a temporary measure while we transition to 100% renewables. You can see from the numbers that it's dropping year by year as new renewables are brought on.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] zik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird argument. "It's a place bigger than a bunch of EU countries put together but it's not a country so I'm going to use other places that aren't South Australia to counter your point which was about South Australia"

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

lol im not playing this shell game.