• PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Real question: Most of things listed are consumer level changes. Isn’t the large majority of global warming being caused by industry emissions?

      • MooseTheDog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Large scale solar farms have been a thing for decades. Large scale solar adoption is like wrestling with a hydra. The heads are Russia, China, and the middle east. Go nuclear, be the sun.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          What exactly does nuclear change about Russia, China and the middle east? That’s a massive non-sequitur

          Besides, think of China what you will, they’ve been key in driving large scale cheap solar

          • MooseTheDog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Nuclear is the only energy that really solves our problems. Nothing to really be confused about there.

            You’re taking solar for granted. You’re not asking the important questions. Like, what if they wont sell to us anymore, what’s the human cost of human life? Can you honestly openly hold solar as some separate high accomplishment against the genocides China and Russia are openly complicit it?

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              The same can be said for nuclear. Potentially even more so. 3 countries produce almost all of the world’s uranium. What if they stop selling? You can build a domestic solar panel industry if you want, you can’t magic a uranium deposit under your feet. Nuclear is slow, expensive and a national security risk. Renewables are none of these things. Stop shilling for the energy companies that want to keep their monopolies.

              • MooseTheDog@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Silliness. Your counterpoints are valid, but mostly restate my last comment with somehow even less sense. Buying solar panels from China isn’t more a national security risk than uranium from Australia? I don’t think you really have a well though out point here.

                I’ll restate my own here for posterity and leave you to it. Solar from China Russia bad. Nuclear from literally anyone else good. Nuclear is safer, cheaper, and more efficient in every way at scale.

                Remember, solar is untenable, poorly adopted, and is actively being pumped in price. This is as cheap as it will ever be all things equal. Nuclear has had none of those luxuries. If you think the price drop of a untenable solution is impressive, wait until you see one that really works.

                • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  54 minutes ago

                  Nuclear is consistently among the most expensive ways to generate power, and only afloat due to massive government subsidies, especially when it comes to waste storage. Whereas solar and wind are only beaten (in some metrics) by natural gas when it comes to power per dollar, getting even cheaper at scale.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

                  Your original point was that renewables are being blocked by China, Russia and the Middle East. I disagree on China, but that’s not the point. How will nuclear, with all strings attached, succeed there, whereas solar and wind won’t? Silliness.