4 ms·
>The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels. >The shower doesn’t get much attention in the context of climate change. However, l
by _dain_ 4y ago
>The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels.
>The shower doesn’t get much attention in the context of climate change. However, like airplanes, cars, and heating systems, it has become a very wasteful and carbon-intensive way to provide for a basic need: washing the body. Each day, many of us pour roughly 70 litres of hot water over our bodies in order to be “clean”.
this is your brain on energy austerity. someone tell the author about this little thing called uranium fission.
also what's with the scare-quotes around "clean"?
>In principle, the energy for a shower could be generated by renewable energy sources. However, if eight billion people were to shower daily, total energy use per year would be 6,132 terawatt-hours (TWh). This is eight times the energy produced by wind turbines worldwide in 2017 (745 TWh). All (current) wind turbines in the world could provide only 1 billion people with a “sustainable” daily shower. Furthermore, the use of renewable energy sources doesn’t lower the water use of the daily shower. To be clear, renewable energy is part of the solution – solar boilers, biomass, heat generating windmills – but we also need to look at the demand side of washing in a post-carbon world.
lmao, saying the quiet part out loud. spend trillions on global energiewende, and we can't shower once we get to the promised land.
>A nine minute hot shower per day is by no means a basic necessity: it’s a treat.
eat shit.
this is what they want: the whole world locked into a permanently sub-21st century standard of living. renewables don't scale, so their ideology has to tell you it's a good thing to be poor, and that enjoying a hot shower is a sign of wickedness. no "treats" for bad pets.
all the wonders of modernity happened because we figured out how to harness exponentially more energy per capita, first by coal, then by oil, then by fission. one day, God willing, we'll jump to fusion. but if the Devil gets his way and we let the degrowthers flatten the curve: that's it. our standard of living hits a ceiling and stays there forever. that's what they really mean by "sustainability".
- germinalphrase 4y agoWe never transcended oil for fission as we did for coal. Our way of life is still riding a glut of fossil fuel use. This probably won’t matter in my lifetime, but that energy glut is not infinite - and we still need fossil fuels to produce that ‘renewable’ and fission equipment.
- _dain_ 4y ago>We never transcended oil for fission as we did for coal. that was a political choice, not practical.
- germinalphrase 4y agoPolitical vs practical fission stagnation is a perennial HN debate.
- armatav 4y agoYeah so remember don’t shower for nine minutes while the glass factory down the road offsets your entire towns carbon footprint for its lifespan in a single day. If you want to eat the bugs, do it; but on behalf of everyone who wants to take a bath, it’s not our problem. These countries have fission, they refuse to use it, and their interest groups guilt trip you into 19th century standards of living. Luh-mao, is all I have to say to that.
- germinalphrase 4y agoI think you’ve misread my “we need fossil fuels/fission isn’t a slam dunk” comment.