Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mynextthroway t1_is1ilon wrote

Reply to comment by phil_style in A breakthrough in electric vehicle battery design has enabled a 10-minute charge time for a typical EV battery. The record-breaking combination of a shorter charge time and more energy acquired for longer travel range was announced today by Wagamaga

A few days ago there was a post with a showboating senator trying to get oil company reps to take an Oath that their companies were no longer spending money to disrupt a shift away from oil. They wouldn't, telling me they are still spending money. I wasn't sure what on since most people believe in global warming. Given the way that discussion went and seeing u/pseudopad response, I am realizing the oil companies are seeding the public with thoughts that we can't change, so why bother. That this change will be too hard for us. It will be a challenge, there will be problems and unexpected difficulties and setbacks. But we must certainly can do this. We must. If this attitude had existed in the 60s, we wouldn't have made it to the moon.

47

phil_style t1_is1ja4t wrote

Yeah, I look around the planet at all the stuff we've built. Roads, hospitals, airports, global networks of telecoms cabling, satellites in space, nuclear power stations, tunnels through mountains, mineral mines with multi-kilometer wide pits, railways, undersea power cables, ships the size of skyscrapers, skyscrapers, ports, giant rings for particle experiments, space craft launching platforms, integrated air defence systems . .

And building up renweables and electric cars is too much effort?

Someone's pulling some serious wool.

32

killcat t1_is1r1qk wrote

Renewables aren't going to do it alone, you can't rely on them enough, nuclear power on the other hand can.

−8

1purenoiz t1_is1v4el wrote

Edit: I am not anti nuclear power. In it's short usage on this planet it is demonstrably safer than coal and natural gas. But that doesn't make it problem free.

Still waiting for nuclear power to figure out a long term solution to it's waste problem.

That problem alone can't be ignored and in a lot of people's eyes, outweighs the benefits.

−16

sophons-are-here t1_is2dvxg wrote

The """"problem """ of nuclear waste was solved in the 60s. Nuclear waste isn't some green goo dripping out of barrels, it's small radioactive particles mixed into giant blocks of ceramics or plastics, encased in steel containers. That waste is going nowhere.

The radiation is so diluted and well-contained if you stand right next to any of the storage vats with a Geiger counter you won't see higher than background levels.

10

1purenoiz t1_is568ch wrote

That is not a solution, that is a stop gap.

I can be ok with nuclear power AND be concerned about long term problems.

0

WhatEvil t1_is4avcb wrote

Coal power plants release more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than nuclear, because coal contains trace amounts of Thorium.

2

1purenoiz t1_is55xb4 wrote

I am not anti nuclear . And whataboutism is not intellectually honest.

Nuclear waste is a problem that can't be ignored, a half life for 5000 years means engineers need to figure out how to turn waste into something beneficial or harmless.

1

grundar t1_is306ib wrote

> I am realizing the oil companies are seeding the public with thoughts that we can't change, so why bother.

You're right -- that is the new face of climate change denial::
> "Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.
>
> What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science."

Their efforts are very much just a delaying tactic, though, as the economics have shifted decisively in favor of clean energy, with renewables now virtually all net new electricity generation worldwide and EVs projected to be a majority of the global car market by 2034 or even 2030.

Still, each year of delay is that much more cumulative emissions and warming, so pushing to accomplish the transition to clean energy sooner rather than later will still have tangible benefits.

14

40for60 t1_is5pj3e wrote

I don't think they are really delaying anything, when the major US automakers are all in on EV's its a lost cause.

1

grundar t1_is61j0y wrote

> I don't think they are really delaying anything, when the major US automakers are all in on EV's its a lost cause.

I largely agree -- EVs started getting mainstream when batteries started getting cheap. No amount of online astroturfing is going to change the fact that EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in most major markets within a few years (source), or the fact that wind and especially solar are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuel power generation.

The economic forces propelling our transition to clean energy are almost inevitable at this point.

Their delaying tactics -- doomism and hopelessness -- are causing significant psychological distress to vast numbers of people, especially young people. As a result, even if their propaganda is not causing any delay in the energy transition it's still worth combatting for the mental health benefits alone.

1

Westfakia t1_is222ym wrote

I saw a billboard this morning near my office (Near Toronto) that said “The oil sands are on the path to reduce greenhouse gases.”

I had to think about that for a moment. Yes, I suppose it is true that they are on the path. But in the wrong direction!!

13

SnooDoubts826 t1_is4c8nl wrote

They are failing because I have never once considered "not being able to do it". But it literally is difficult.

1