Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, but the government subsides fossil fuels with billions. They wouldn't be economically sustainable otherwise

Solar is the cheapest energy already. EV's are more efficient then gas cars. The charge time is a solved problem but the biggest problem is infrastructure and cost of new technology. We are optimised for gas, and coal. we will burn that shit up if we don't regulate it or invest heavily. We will always need oil for plastics and as lubricants but we could stop burning it within the next 20 years if we make regulations. In fact, the EU passed a bill that stops the selling of gas Cars in 2035. I don't think this will work but I hope it helps fast forward the process

The effect of direct heat released from powerplants would be miniscule in the lifetime of any powerplants we are going to build in the near future(in the next 30 years), so making any decissions based on that doesn't make any sense.

The change of albedo caused by air pollution is more significant, but it isn't an issue with nuclear.

Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2218924S/abstract

I didnt hear the coolidge before, but your quote was spot on XD

Considering most of them exist in forced poverty, im not surprised.

[removed]

A flower too is a haphazardly assembled confederation then, but it has traits we think are fascinating. We simply have more of them. Much.. more.

The effect of direct heat released from powerplants would be miniscule in the lifetime of any powerplants we are going to build in the near future, so making any decissions based on that doesn't make any sense.

The change of albedo caused by air pollution is more significant, but it isn't an issue with nuclear.

Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2218924S/abstract

​

>This would be an issue with fission as well as with fusion. Seeing how you can scale neither fission nor fusion to even meet global base load demands that issue is mainly theoretical though. Basically all forms of nuclear power run into massive issues when you try to scale them beyond 1 TW globally.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

If many of these points were true it would also make renewable energy transition impossible. New sources of uranium and minerals(such as rare earths needed by renewables) are made avalaible if the price increases.

Also this point just wrong.

>for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years

Extractring it from seawater isn't economically feasible, expect it is because it is because it can become economically unfeasible, after we exctract just 0.01% of the uranium from the seas, which in turn doesn't make any sense. How would such tiny a reduction in consetration would make process unfeasible? Not to mention that new uranium is dissolved in the seawater if concetration decreases.

I agree with you that going 100 % nuclear doesn't make sence, but quality of that study highly questionable.

From the euractiv article on the same subject:

>Member states have committed to collectively reach a share of at least 42.5% of renewable energy sources (RES) in the EU’s gross final energy consumption by 2030.

So it's all energy, including heating and transport. Germany was at 19% in 2021 according to eurostat.

I quoted the next paragraph sorry. The previous one showed that the 45 percent figure is solar and wind at 35, biogas at 8 and hydro etc for the rest. So biogas is considered renewable.

I choose to be an optimist with most things. This is not because I am naive and assume extinction won't happen. It's because I want to enjoy the moment without stressing about something I have no control over. If society collapses or if we all die from climate change, or mass genocide, at least I'll have lived a good life with the time that I had.

What's interesting is that so many of our problems share the same causes.

Thank you! Here are my thoughts.

>What do you have to say to people who will lose jobs to automation?

In a post scarcity society, the necessities of life (food, water, energy, housing) is produced in great abundance that they are essentially free. As a result, you only work if you want to, not because you have to. This frees everyone up to pursue what they are interested or talented in. This opens people up to starting small businesses and fueling a local economy.

>Why aren't people already doing these things?

The ideas exist, but rarely have they been consolidated and organized into a policy proposal. Instead, they largely remain utopian daydreams that get stigmatized for unpracticality. However, this society is entirely feasible. We just need to make it happen.

>How do you plan to make this all happen?

I am going to write and publish an academic research paper about this subject and make a website and identity around it. I've been dabbling in spreading the word on TikTok and bringing attention to the solutions to the problems we care the most about.

I'm a journalist at my school's international affairs paper, so I try to use that as a platform. My last article was about the future of food.

I'm unversed in how social movements are created and popularized. However, this is my life's calling and will do everything to make it a reality.

I was making a fat joke 🤷 they'll be hungry long before being dead

Because an AI dont argue with stakeholders. You know being a dev isnt about writing code, its finding out what problems need to be solved

Funny because as a dev I see people hire western people instead because the culture issues with indian devs.

They realized asking for something and getting what you want is not that easy.

But oh chatgpt will understand stakeholders?

Like you said, youre not tech savy so how would you know

Job satisaction is a big part of peoples goals...i was listening to a muslim harvard grad who spoke about how modernity leads to isolation and atomization because it breaks the bonds of kinship. I wonder how people woudl form communities.

[deleted]

Not as much as you think. There is an impending global shortage of fertilizer, a necessary ingredient to the globe's food industry. This was mostly caused by the War in Ukraine that destroyed several refineries that was pivotal to the international market.

Realistically, we will run out of fertilizer stock in about 3-5 years. After that, who's to say?

Well as a concerned Redditor, who isn't really helping at all, I say: All of them of course.

Oh wait. I see. Now, I'm sad. So very sad.

I subbed. Have you read Manna – Two Views of Humanity’s Future

Wondering what your thoughts are on that.

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

[removed]

Americans are highly robust to famine. There's time.

Are you kidding? There are already prompt engineering consultants making huge stacks teaching organizations how they can augment or even replace their knowledge workers with language models. Everyone is very underprepared for how quickly things are going to change.

This comment made it, but mine gets removed for "being too short" when it's two sentences?