3 ms·

The problem is, of course, that there isn't a fixed pie for stuff or energy, and that we can't just ship stuff or energy for free. The Africans don't suddenly g

The problem is, of course, that there isn't a fixed pie for stuff or energy, and that we can't just ship stuff or energy for free. The Africans don't suddenly get free energy if I stop driving my Electric Hummer. They get energy if we give them the tech and loan them the capital to build power plants. If we just stop consuming as much energy, at least coal, oil, and to a degree natgas CAN be shipped to Afria. This is not true for energy produced from renewables. So we will actually set them back.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There is a very fixed pie for uranium and lithium and neodymium and ecological damage. Your hummer could be a thousand ebikes. Your 0.6kg of silver in 50kW of solar and 1t of concrete and 200g of neodymium in 20kW of wind could be refrigeration and basic services for 30 people. Your 200kg of uranium could be two less children in kakadu or niger with leukemia and 10 acres less usable grazing land.
amalgamated_inc 4y ago
Can't reply on the other one (max depth?) so replying here. Nobody in the west is currently using "more than their fair share" in terms of uranium or lithium, except maybe EV owners :D Uranium is completely underused because of the irrational fearmongering since the 70s, which is the reason we have the global warming problem to begin with. If we'd gone all-in on nuclear, we'd be practically carbon zero now. So your claim that the poor aren't getting their fair share of stuff/energy because the rich are using too much is just plainly false.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You have to wait a bit to reply on long threads. > Nobody in the west is currently using "more than their fair share" in terms of uranium or lithium, except maybe EV owners :D The rest are just using 100x their share of the sustainable GHG emissions budget, and the wealthiest 1% or so in the west are using so much energy that just the waste heat from thermal generation is enough to provide an unsustainable amount of thermal forcing were everyone to use the same amount. > Uranium is completely underused because of the irrational fearmongering since the 70s, which is the reason we have the global warming problem to begin with. If we'd gone all-in on nuclear, we'd be practically carbon zero now. Is this some kind of bad take olympics? The current existing and planned reactor fleet will use all of the economically accessible uranium in a generation or two and will ravage vast areas of kazakhstan, namibia, and australia in doing so. And that's to make a couple % of final energy. There's not even a single fuel load to fully replace fossil fuels for 6 years.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

There is a very fixed pie for uranium and lithium and neodymium and ecological damage. Your hummer could be a thousand ebikes. Your 0.6kg of silver in 50kW of solar and 1t of concrete and 200g of neodymium in 20kW of wind could be refrigeration and basic services for 30 people. Your 200kg of uranium could be two less children in kakadu or niger with leukemia and 10 acres less usable grazing land.

amalgamated_inc 4y ago

Can't reply on the other one (max depth?) so replying here. Nobody in the west is currently using "more than their fair share" in terms of uranium or lithium, except maybe EV owners :D Uranium is completely underused because of the irrational fearmongering since the 70s, which is the reason we have the global warming problem to begin with. If we'd gone all-in on nuclear, we'd be practically carbon zero now. So your claim that the poor aren't getting their fair share of stuff/energy because the rich are using too much is just plainly false.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You have to wait a bit to reply on long threads. > Nobody in the west is currently using "more than their fair share" in terms of uranium or lithium, except maybe EV owners :D The rest are just using 100x their share of the sustainable GHG emissions budget, and the wealthiest 1% or so in the west are using so much energy that just the waste heat from thermal generation is enough to provide an unsustainable amount of thermal forcing were everyone to use the same amount. > Uranium is completely underused because of the irrational fearmongering since the 70s, which is the reason we have the global warming problem to begin with. If we'd gone all-in on nuclear, we'd be practically carbon zero now. Is this some kind of bad take olympics? The current existing and planned reactor fleet will use all of the economically accessible uranium in a generation or two and will ravage vast areas of kazakhstan, namibia, and australia in doing so. And that's to make a couple % of final energy. There's not even a single fuel load to fully replace fossil fuels for 6 years.