You keep saying that you were a proponent of FF back in the day, but the fact that you aren’t giving credence to the experiences that made you switch lessens your credibility and weakens any persuasion power you might have on people switching from FF to Brave.
It would help your cause to explain what made you switch so others might understand you.
But from your demeanor, it seems like you dgaf about other people. So I guess that’s fair.
Yeah, Nebula is an alternative that’s trying to grow. Think it’s creator owned too which is nice. I haven’t made the switch yet, but if I wanted to support creators directly I’d choose Nebula over YouTube. And if I could, I’d send money straight to them via Patreon or PayPal or other.
Would any group structure of the size you describe lead to the same state of affairs? Does this include government as well as any community that collects over any life activity?
If you want to see what the heck veganism is about compared to vegetarianism, check this resource out.
But yeah! Leather is also bad for the same reason, contributing to the same industry. There are alternatives out there so don’t feel bad!
One step at a time, like you’ve mentioned in your other comments.
Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:
Going vegetarian doesn’t seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.
That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.
The killing will continue until morale improves
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I’d say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
Yeah, the argument of nuclear crumbles when you start to peak behind the curtain of operation. Still, renewables have the same problem.
Wind turbines break shafts, studs, bolts, lifts, generator step-up (GSU) units, etc. Then you still need oil for all the mechanical systems in a turbine too, which can degrade. Operations can keep up with this though, and in my experience wind can be up and running a lot more frequently with reference to failures that cause downtime compared with maintenance of nuclear with reference to downtime for it.
Same with solar, or even better with solar because the only moving parts with solar are the axis trackers that move panels such that they always point at the sun. Lots more uptime that doesn’t involve radiation exposure, although that concern for operations has probably been designed out as reactor technology has grown up.
Or at least I’d hope…
I think you have a point. Look at how the Oil & Gas industry pivoted to fracking and tar sands after conventional oil started drying up around 2005.
There are deposits out there, probably, and the only time mining companies will consider changing ehat and how they currently mine is if they have a reason to do so,: aka an economic (or governmental) reason.
Still, discovery, technology r&d, and supply chain establishment might take more time than what we have. It’s good that we should keep nuclear and all of this on the table, but it shouldn’t be a priority.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we’re here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can’t come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.
I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.
But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.
We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they’ll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.
Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.
Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.
Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can’t exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.
Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.
Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.
This is terroristic behavior, no? What’s the plan now? Approach those properties? Then what? Threaten or harass? Ffs man, lock Trump up and these loonies. Restore civil order
Rotate monthly tips! Or only tip your favorite