Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixj07rz wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in We might be waiting a decade for solutions to CT's high energy costs by -ctinsider

Yeah issue is the there isn’t enough time. We need to go solar and wind rapidly first. People forget about the green house effect. At a certain point, a near point in the future, the positive feed back loop of earth warming and getting continuously hotter becomes unstoppable. Then live in our known universe is gone forever.

−5

[deleted] t1_ixj1bok wrote

[deleted]

11

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjwpo3 wrote

It’s not too late yet. We just need to deploy it like crazy in the next ten years. Then nuclear. If we miss the deadline, everyone parties and does every vice for ten years then we Jim jones the human species together.

0

[deleted] t1_ixk00wy wrote

[deleted]

1

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixk5ust wrote

It’s a joke. Jim Jones. The cult in South America that committed mass suicide by drinking kool aid laced with poison in Jonestown.

I’m saying if we get passed the point of the in which we can’t stop the positive feed back loop of Earth increasingly getting hotter and hotter. We party for ten years or forever how long. Live life to the fullest. No wars. Just fun. When the planet gets so bad, that people will start to have painful deaths full of suffering. Instead of suffering,slowly dying, fighting over the remaining resources until we go extinct. The species commits suicide. It’s not a realistic or a serious suggestion. It was a dark joke.

1

MightyMason t1_ixkaulu wrote

Funny you don’t see the irony in your Jim Jones analogy and your own train of thought.

You sound like the guy on the corner with the “the end is near sign” those guys have been out there for decades swearing the world is coming to an end tomorrow. And yet here we are.

Lots of good, grounded, realistic, responses from other users in this thread though.

1

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixke1se wrote

What exactly is your issue with what I said? I already stated nuclear should get even more funding and is the future and better long term then the other renewables. But nuclear is expensive, takes a long time to go live, political redtape, not in my backyardism make it costly, slow and sometimes impossible to get up and running.

Right now with the limited amount of money, the political climate, the current state of the energy industry, the window of time in which we need to decrease emissions, it makes more sense to invest more in solar and wind. We can more quickly reduce emissions which increases the window of time before the earth gets to hot, which gives nuclear more time to improve and become cheaper and more politically favorable.

I did not say that nuclear is bad and that wind and solar are carbon negative or that they produce enough energy to meet all our demands.

Based on the current science, political climate, money and time available, a long with the fact utilities/manufacturers/sellers/technicians/funding/governments have been pushing and have create an environment in which solar and wind are viable to be wildly adopted and installed. Regardless of we should do, that is going to happen.

I’m saying that should happen sooner. In the mean time nuclear gets billions of dollars from the government. It should. The funding, planning and promotion and researching and developing and the building of many more nuclear power plants should happen.

Because nuclear power plants take so long to get up and running usually longer than planned and go over budget

Along with solar and wind being more easily implemented

Push those more now, get emissions downs, which gives us more time, fossil fuels costs and renewable maintenance costs go up, now we can free up and justify more capital and labor to build more nuclear power plants.

0

Synapse82 t1_ixkhlyp wrote

The weirdest version of happy in this sub. You aren’t the old happy

Also, you forget that we literally destroy the Atmosphere and entire countries to create toxic disposables batteries and plastics that goes into solar.

The mining lithium is destroying this planet to feel good about having your house be solar powered.

We need clean global energy. Nuclear.

10 years to build or less, is not a long time compared to the Slave labor and people dying for rare earth minerals.

2

slipperyrock4 t1_ixj2hu0 wrote

Life will be just fine. People won’t be able to see it though.

Solar and wind do not remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The cheapest most proven method for that are just trees, plants, and other vegetation that then is not combusted.

Nuclear fission can serve as a stepping stone to increasing power storage and supply networks as well as reliability. If fusion is ever obtained then long term nuclear plants are viable. Otherwise, long term we will rely on the giant nuclear reactor 93 million miles away from us.

6

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjx0jv wrote

I’m not against nuclear, we just need to use other renewables now to slow warming down, while doing that we develop and advance and build nuclear power plant’s more.

You are right reforestation, Algea, energy efficiency, energy use reduce are the fastest ways to drop it. We certainly won’t be fine nor will most of life.

1

G3Saint t1_ixjn4le wrote

Solar and wind sound nice until it comes to a neighborhood near you. There;s a reason why only 2 large scale wind turbines have been built in the state in the last 10 years. And solar takes up way too much land for minimal energy.

2

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjvp04 wrote

We don’t have enough time. We have to use solar and wind to drastically reduce emissions. Then we can be sustainable with nuclear. Nuclear takes to much money and time to go live. If we get nuclear going sooner but didn’t decrease emissions enough to stop temps from rising before hand we are fucked. the permafrost thaw and ocean will be releasing methane and greenhouse gasses at an amount and rate at which humans emissions makes zero difference. The planet will continue to warm and warm and we can’t stop that. We won’t survive that. Solar and wind etc are the quickest ways for us to drop emissions to drastically slow that down so that we can then have the time to go nuclear. So nuclear is the future but we need to do other renewables right now so we have the time to go nuclear. Nuclear is hella expensive and takes time to go live. We don’t have the time and money currently

0

Myotherside t1_ixk95sn wrote

Put it on every roof and we won’t need large scale installations

0

kril89 t1_ixjglx0 wrote

Wind is a net neutral when it comes to carbon. It takes a TON of energy to create them. In theory with enough extra capacity from wind/solar and nuclear carbon capture becomes feasible. So the runaway problem might not be as big of a problem. But that’s at least 30+ years from now.

1

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjw9sl wrote

But if we drop emissions now with wind and solar we’ll have more time to advance and get more nuclear live. 30 years is not a long time. Right now I don’t see the money or time or political climate for use to reduce our emissions quickly with nuclear. Go solar wind heavy for ten years, not stopping nuclear development in the mean time. Reduced emissions can extend that window to sixty years and the need for nuclear to fill the void of fossil fuels will be more clear and politically favorable.

1

bigfoot822 t1_ixjp5cx wrote

The problem is we have been saying there isn't enough time for the last 40-45 years. I have no issues with wind and solar but it is not a sustainable base load for the grid, take a look at Germany after they closed their nuclear industry. In order to make wind and solar a possibility we need to develop storage that isn't there yet, or we could work on nuclear now and have a chance of stemming the tide

1

iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjuasz wrote

I get your point. My point is our only option is to greatly and rapidly expand solar, wind, hydro in like ten to twenty years. Because that’s the quickest way to lower emissions to the point we don’t cause the unstoppable feed back cycle. Obviously nuclear is greener and more sustainable and the to long term solution. Ideally 50-60 years ago, we would have invested way way way way more into nuclear and energy efficiency along with renewables. We don’t have enough time currently to invest into nuclear more or reallocate funds from renewables to nuclear. Nuclear takes too long to go live without red tape. We need to get emissions down now. Then go more to nuclear. If we go nuclear now at the expense of other renewables, we won’t get emissions down fast enough. Yeah we’ll have sustainable energy with nuclear sooner but it would be too late. Us reducing emissions then won’t stop the feed back cycle, we are toast. We would have been better off just living it up emitting more emissions and all agreeing at a certain date fir ever country launching their nuclear weapons so we die quicker. Humans won’t survive but life might. Maybe the nuclear winner and removal of man will allow for the planet to heal.

1