4 ms·

> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fo

> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century. This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.

declan_roberts 2y ago
What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
- ianeigorndua 2y ago
  Trash, mostly.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    Not really. I live close to Hamburg, Germany. _Very_ eager to be eco-friendly and sustainable. Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables. The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      Germany shutting down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors instead of their coal plants was so stupid. Germany emits 5 to 6 times more CO2 per J than France.
      - luckylion 2y ago
        I agree. But at the end of the day it's not rationality that controls the fate of large groups of people, it's emotions. Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany, and you can't argue with people who believe they'll die next week if that power plant keeps producing energy.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        "Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany" That is very unfortunate because it is the only real long-term solution to prevent climate change and maintain our current standard of living.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Tade0 2y ago
  They used coal, but apartment blocks use considerably less energy per unit living space vs detached houses thanks to their lower surface area to volume ratio.
gottorf 2y ago
> This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy. > is a result of urbanization mostly Urbanization, made possible by the economical source of energy that is fossil fuels.
- unusualmonkey 2y ago
  > The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy. Can you expand on this? How does the density of fossil fuel make them a better source of energy than say wind?
  - lazide 2y ago
    One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology. The issue with fossil fuels is that they liberate fossil carbon, which has larger macro effects on the global environment. (It injects a lot of ‘new’ carbon into the carbon cycle) They also do sometimes have some medium sized local effects from spills or contamination. But those can usually be controlled. Geothermal is also usually ‘low footprint/high value’, but is only viable in specific limited locations. Solar, wind, hydropower, tidal energy all have large physical footprints for the amount of energy they produce. Aka ‘low density’. All are also somewhat tied to specific, and often limited geology. For solar for instance, areas with a lot of desert or other open ‘non productive’ land nearby, it’s great (assuming decent insolation). In areas where land is at a premium for other uses, or is very rugged/high maintenance, it definitely is a problem. Aka cities, certain types of high intensity farmland, heavily forested areas, high snow load/storm areas, etc. Solar is not an awesome economic choice in Siberia, for example. It is an awesome economic choice in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, etc. For areas with geography that supports it (typically the right kind of mountain ranges) and rainfall, hydropower is awesome, though has serious side effects on wildlife and river health. For a place that doesn’t have the right geography (say England), it’s a non starter.

declan_roberts 2y ago

What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?

ianeigorndua 2y ago
Trash, mostly.
- luckylion 2y ago
  Not really. I live close to Hamburg, Germany. _Very_ eager to be eco-friendly and sustainable. Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables. The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    Germany shutting down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors instead of their coal plants was so stupid. Germany emits 5 to 6 times more CO2 per J than France.
    - luckylion 2y ago
      I agree. But at the end of the day it's not rationality that controls the fate of large groups of people, it's emotions. Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany, and you can't argue with people who believe they'll die next week if that power plant keeps producing energy.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        "Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany" That is very unfortunate because it is the only real long-term solution to prevent climate change and maintain our current standard of living.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Tade0 2y ago
They used coal, but apartment blocks use considerably less energy per unit living space vs detached houses thanks to their lower surface area to volume ratio.

gottorf 2y ago

> This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy. > is a result of urbanization mostly Urbanization, made possible by the economical source of energy that is fossil fuels.

unusualmonkey 2y ago
> The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy. Can you expand on this? How does the density of fossil fuel make them a better source of energy than say wind?
- lazide 2y ago
  One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology. The issue with fossil fuels is that they liberate fossil carbon, which has larger macro effects on the global environment. (It injects a lot of ‘new’ carbon into the carbon cycle) They also do sometimes have some medium sized local effects from spills or contamination. But those can usually be controlled. Geothermal is also usually ‘low footprint/high value’, but is only viable in specific limited locations. Solar, wind, hydropower, tidal energy all have large physical footprints for the amount of energy they produce. Aka ‘low density’. All are also somewhat tied to specific, and often limited geology. For solar for instance, areas with a lot of desert or other open ‘non productive’ land nearby, it’s great (assuming decent insolation). In areas where land is at a premium for other uses, or is very rugged/high maintenance, it definitely is a problem. Aka cities, certain types of high intensity farmland, heavily forested areas, high snow load/storm areas, etc. Solar is not an awesome economic choice in Siberia, for example. It is an awesome economic choice in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, etc. For areas with geography that supports it (typically the right kind of mountain ranges) and rainfall, hydropower is awesome, though has serious side effects on wildlife and river health. For a place that doesn’t have the right geography (say England), it’s a non starter.