5 ms·

This is good news people. We’re just not very used to them anymore. Scaling to 365 days and 8 billion people is harder than 10 million and 6 days. But it’s a n

This is good news people. We’re just not very used to them anymore. Scaling to 365 days and 8 billion people is harder than 10 million and 6 days. But it’s a nice step in the right direction.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 3y ago
A very large percentage of the world is already on 100% renewables, they simply don't have grid power. Their footprint is a fraction of the wealthy remainder.
- mcjiggerlog 3y ago
  Who do you think is using renewable power that is not connected to a grid? Poor off-grid communities are pretty much exclusively burning fossil fuels or biomass for primary energy, which are most certainly not carbon-neutral or good for the environment.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Biomass is carbon neutral.
    - mcjiggerlog 3y ago
      There's nothing green about chopping down forests for energy - biomass being called carbon neutral is one of the greenwashing scams of the century. Whether burned forests are ever regenerated at all is something that I'm incredible sceptical about - there's very little oversight into companies' claims. Even if they are being replanted, you are tearing down potentially primary forest and important habitat and replacing it with tree farms. Finally, burning wood is incredibly polluting and awful for anyone in the region of said power plants.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Nobody is chopping down old growth forest to burn in electrical plants. What happens is that combustible waste and young growth (especially the bits unusable by the lumber industry) get burned. This is a cylcle, not to be compared with coal or oil. Yes, it's still polluting.
        mcjiggerlog 3y ago
        > Nobody is chopping down old growth forest to burn in electrical plants. I wouldn't be so sure. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-carbon-climate-politics-477620 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-ca... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/estonia-holy-forests-threatened-by-industrial-tree-farming https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/estonia-h...
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Indeed, material from logging can end up in a plant to be burned for electrical power. But: that's after the lumber industry has had its way with the logs and by that time you have sawdust and odds and bits, these are pulped and compressed into pellets, those are then burned.

This is good news people. We’re just not very used to them anymore. Scaling to 365 days and 8 billion people is harder than 10 million and 6 days. But it’s a nice step in the right direction.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

A very large percentage of the world is already on 100% renewables, they simply don't have grid power. Their footprint is a fraction of the wealthy remainder.

mcjiggerlog 3y ago
Who do you think is using renewable power that is not connected to a grid? Poor off-grid communities are pretty much exclusively burning fossil fuels or biomass for primary energy, which are most certainly not carbon-neutral or good for the environment.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Biomass is carbon neutral.
  - mcjiggerlog 3y ago
    There's nothing green about chopping down forests for energy - biomass being called carbon neutral is one of the greenwashing scams of the century. Whether burned forests are ever regenerated at all is something that I'm incredible sceptical about - there's very little oversight into companies' claims. Even if they are being replanted, you are tearing down potentially primary forest and important habitat and replacing it with tree farms. Finally, burning wood is incredibly polluting and awful for anyone in the region of said power plants.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Nobody is chopping down old growth forest to burn in electrical plants. What happens is that combustible waste and young growth (especially the bits unusable by the lumber industry) get burned. This is a cylcle, not to be compared with coal or oil. Yes, it's still polluting.
      - mcjiggerlog 3y ago
        > Nobody is chopping down old growth forest to burn in electrical plants. I wouldn't be so sure. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63089348 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-carbon-climate-politics-477620 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-ca... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/estonia-holy-forests-threatened-by-industrial-tree-farming https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/estonia-h...
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Indeed, material from logging can end up in a plant to be burned for electrical power. But: that's after the lumber industry has had its way with the logs and by that time you have sawdust and odds and bits, these are pulped and compressed into pellets, those are then burned.