3 ms·

> This is really getting ridiculous. What's getting ridiculous here is the definition of "greenshaming". If you find the mere description of a more energy effi

> This is really getting ridiculous. What's getting ridiculous here is the definition of "greenshaming". If you find the mere description of a more energy efficient alternative shameful, that's on you, not on the author of the article. > By no means is water scarce in many regions of the earth And in many places it is. What's your point? The point of the blog is to point out and remind us of low-tech and obsolete solutions to conserve energy and depletable resources. As the article points out, you can "steamify" a regular shower at low cost and waste less freshwater. Whichever energy source you use to heat water then, you'll need less of it.

wffurr 7y ago
Thea article literally opens with "The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels". I don't think that's true, even for 70 L "wasteful" showers.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  It is absolutely, completely true that a 70L warm shower for every human being is unsustainable; it even backs it up by comparing the amount of electrical energy needed to heat up that volume of water with the current production of wind energy worldwide.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    "Sustainable" or "Unsustainable" are imprecise terms. Our Sun is unsustainable long term if you think in terms of billions of years. What matters to many people here is whether a given use of energy makes a significant difference in present contributions to anthropogenic climate change. There's an unfortunate tendency for environmentalist folks to pile on to the idea of preventing climate change as validation for their views and to speak as if all actions which can be undertaken to benefit the environment are equally important to prevent a climate apocalypse. They are not. Personally, I'm in favor of widespread use of Nuclear generating stations. They're sustainable for millennia in terms of fuel abundance and the needed storage space for waste as well as being very low emitters of CO2 even when you amortize the amount of greenhouse gases generated during construction over their lifetime.
    - Daishiman 7y ago
      However much I'm in favor of nuclear power, you cannot separate the political environment surrounding it, and as such if it is not politically feasible to transition over to it, then it is not sustainable. Sustainability doesn't just live in the bubble of what's physically possible. A global population of 500 million people living in a first-world standard of living is also quite sustainable, but you're not gonna get a lot of people in favor of a depopulation movement either.
- Accujack 7y ago
  It's obviously not true in a world with nuclear reactors. In fact, widespread use of nuclear would make hot water cheaper for everyone and greatly reduce wastewater production - used water (even sewage) could be distilled into clean water vapor and dry, sterile biological matter with enough clean energy. Then we just need to add some minerals back into the water to make it perfectly tasty and healthy to drink.

wffurr 7y ago

Thea article literally opens with "The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels". I don't think that's true, even for 70 L "wasteful" showers.

Daishiman 7y ago
It is absolutely, completely true that a 70L warm shower for every human being is unsustainable; it even backs it up by comparing the amount of electrical energy needed to heat up that volume of water with the current production of wind energy worldwide.
- Accujack 7y ago
  "Sustainable" or "Unsustainable" are imprecise terms. Our Sun is unsustainable long term if you think in terms of billions of years. What matters to many people here is whether a given use of energy makes a significant difference in present contributions to anthropogenic climate change. There's an unfortunate tendency for environmentalist folks to pile on to the idea of preventing climate change as validation for their views and to speak as if all actions which can be undertaken to benefit the environment are equally important to prevent a climate apocalypse. They are not. Personally, I'm in favor of widespread use of Nuclear generating stations. They're sustainable for millennia in terms of fuel abundance and the needed storage space for waste as well as being very low emitters of CO2 even when you amortize the amount of greenhouse gases generated during construction over their lifetime.
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    However much I'm in favor of nuclear power, you cannot separate the political environment surrounding it, and as such if it is not politically feasible to transition over to it, then it is not sustainable. Sustainability doesn't just live in the bubble of what's physically possible. A global population of 500 million people living in a first-world standard of living is also quite sustainable, but you're not gonna get a lot of people in favor of a depopulation movement either.
Accujack 7y ago
It's obviously not true in a world with nuclear reactors. In fact, widespread use of nuclear would make hot water cheaper for everyone and greatly reduce wastewater production - used water (even sewage) could be distilled into clean water vapor and dry, sterile biological matter with enough clean energy. Then we just need to add some minerals back into the water to make it perfectly tasty and healthy to drink.