did i read a thread where someone seriously said they were going to stop doing climate activism where it required using a car at any point
An insider I know said it best; it's just moving the wealth and profits from ExxonMobil and BP to Tesla and battery companies like BYD.
@pawlicker @xianc78 @splitshockvirus @lanodan generating motive force through eletricity generated by power plants is substantially more clean than shipping gas all over the world and then blowing it up in a million small engines
@Moon @pawlicker @lanodan @splitshockvirus @xianc78 I like the flywheel buses. No requirement of rare materials and pretty much everything that goes into building one can be readily reused.

@pawlicker @splitshockvirus @lanodan @Moon ExxonMobil is owned by the Rockerfellers who were big into eugenics. The climate narrative leads to the overpopulation narrative which leads to population control (aka rebranded eugenics).

James Corbett has talked about this subject in detail.

corbettreport.com/interview-14

@xianc78 @splitshockvirus @Moon I think electric-centric energy is the worst and people really ought to do the whole Math rather than just "But it eats less energy on my side!".
@lanodan @xianc78 @splitshockvirus @Moon It really isn't about "less energy on my side". Even with the current US electricity mix the power plants are cleaner than the ICE.

And then you improve the power plants for further gains.

EVs really are better.

But reusing an old car, any type, instead of manufacturing a new one, is better still.
@clacke @xianc78 @splitshockvirus @Moon By electric-centric I meant more than just cars, which are highly inefficient to begin with, for example because of their absurd weight that makes their consumption within cities even worse.

@xianc78 @lanodan @Moon

If the same people advocated the construction nuclear power plants, I honestly would not have a problem with people blockading highways and city streets.

If climate change is unironically an existential threat then the solution could have been built 60 years ago, and could be built now in 1-2 decades. After which you can take all the time you need to build a renewable future with whatever fancy Unobtainium battery you want. But i'm more convinced we will see a profitable fusion reactor before the world moves to renewables both of which are unlikely.

tl;dr I'm doing more for the environment by running you over with my f-150 than you are by building your pin wheel power plants.

@shaunh @splitshockvirus @lanodan @Moon Wind mill farms will be great places to gather meat when they start forcing us to eat the bugs.

@shaunh

The "cAtS kIlL mOrE bIrDs" fud pisses me off, Cats don't kill large endangered migratory birds.

@xianc78 @lanodan @Moon

@splitshockvirus @xianc78 @Moon AFAIK fusion reactors have yet to meaningfully produce more energy than they consumed, it's cool to see research on them but I wouldn't believe much in them until proven.
@tomey @xianc78 @splitshockvirus @Moon Is that the one where if you actually do the whole count (laser beams not being normal energy for example), you barely get more energy out?

My point being that it's cool to see progress, but we're not there yet.
@lanodan @xianc78 @splitshockvirus @Moon decades away but incremental progress is still progress. In the meantime, there are plenty of advanced fission reactors waiting to be built.

@lanodan @xianc78 @Moon

There have been recent innovations but beyond just being able to be able to produce positive energy output you need to make sure the operation and construction is economical.

But I agree the research, design, material science and engineering is fascinating. I would must rather an advanced civilization powered by our own artifical sun than have to rely on the natural sunlight and the heat it generates.

If future energy generation does not progress past Solar and Wind (including organic fuels) I will be very disappointed. I don't want to live in a world powered by wind mills.

@splitshockvirus @lanodan @xianc78 @Moon Build solar. Build wind. Build nuclear. Welre gonna need them all.

@clacke @lanodan @Moon @xianc78

I'm not against renewables, but there is a clear bias AGAINST nuclear as it is just never brought up as a solution, because nuclear waste is scary and Pripyat is scary.

@splitshockvirus @clacke @lanodan @Moon @xianc78 it's specially funny because pripyat is absolutely safe (well with the war maybe not), even the water around there is safe
the only reason people don't live there is because of fearmongering
@Paulo @xianc78 @clacke @splitshockvirus @Moon There's actually some villages in the Zone, or at least there was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosely

But I wouldn't say that Pripyat, as in the the city and it's buildings are safe, there is radioactivity in it, you'd have to be consistently careful.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.