pl-94

Meat production is using some parts of this energy (e.g. transportation of feedstock + food). You either want to look at how the energy is produced or how it is consumed.

Moreover, we aim at reaching net carbon by 2050. This means that we need to cut on everything. So the question is about how easy it is to reduce such budget and how efficient this cut provides.

In this perspective, zero waste is a bad trade off for climate change (a lot of efforts and only a 100 kg saved per year). Vegetarianism (or better veganism) sounds like the best thing to start with.

The main point of the article is that degrowthing is incompatible with poverty reduction. I like à lot this quote: "you can't negotiate with physics". It got quite famous after being used by G. Thunberg at Davos, while it is much older [1]. In other words, poverty might be overcome with public policies, while the issue is way more complex concerning climate change (and loss of biodiversity)

[1] https://medium.com/@billmckibben/why-the-earth-is-heating-so...

Wow. So much energy put to gather misleading data.

The lastest report of IPCC brings more data and confidence about extreme weather. The key number is that their probability has increased by a factor of 150 wrt. to pré industrial era.

I don't know much about California but it seems that most of the dam potential of the state has already been exploited [0].

This is the case for most developed areas.

[0] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-water-st...

This is a low tech blog. It is difficult to reduce your carbon footprint while experiencing an exponential urge to consume new tech.

Tech products footprint is either during consumption (most of the devices requiring heat or cold) or during production (the other devices like smartphones).

Obviously this rule is a trend and countries with low carbon electricity are exceptions.

While most people are OK for lasting a smartphone a bit longer, the same logic would imply to reduce the heat/cold consumption.

So yeah in this sense, a freezer is a luxe we can't afford.

How can you confirm that the sealed object is not a fake? Sealing an object is quite easy no?

We need to mourn a normal life. We won't and we shalln't live the same life with the same goals than the previous generation. Mourning does not mean to become nihilist. But that the only way to get excited by new sustainable and resilient projects.

Plant wastes are a part of an eco system. They are cunsomed and transformed into other wastes. Actually, only human beings see wastes as a definitive lost. For every sustainable cycles, a waste is going to be transformed into you will consume again.

I am an nvim user. I still have everything on my vimrc but I installed nvim on all of my servers. Some plugins do not work on vim8+ (telescope.vim e.g.)

Https://app.mieuxvoter.fr

Let's say that a serious proof of a lab leak emerged, what would be the political consequences? Will countries ask China for compensation?

I am not sure the fire hazard argument hold. Would you remove any Californian forest for that reason?

Only a very small portion of earth is not able to generate a forest when left alone

I personally use neovim with coc-pyright plugin. It integrates remarkably well mypy. It has saved me so many hours of development, I just can't dev without it nowadays.

What means recycling? From 1 kWh you restore 1 kWh? Or from 1 kWh you restore 1 Wh and then publish a report claiming how sustainable is your business?

Apparently [1] 2 billions of people live under 100$ a month. But my guess is that those people do not have access to a computer, or it might be quite challenging to provide an office not to far from their place with internet.

[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/n...

It doesn't work here. The idea is nice. Could you add a sentence rephrasing? I'd like to say "my mom is" instead of "a mom"

I don't think click and bait articles is new. What is new is that now we read articles from different sources, such that we are much better informed and think more critically

OK but some models of gen iv of nuclear power plants can pretty much do the same. It sounds pretty dumb to me that journalists are super enthusiast about fusion but much less about gen iv (which is way more mature)

Can someone explain to me the advantages of fusion over fission? Except for the radioactive wastes and the enthusiasm of journalists I don't get it

This measure is more of a symbol than an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Attacking symbols is a always nice, but isn't it a little bit late for that? I can't wait the day where EU will try for real to follow Paris agreement.

Danemark knows pretty much the same situation -- except for the nuclear power plants.

A very good visualization of both situations compared to France is given in electricitymap.org

Can anyone explain me what is the danger of losing 60% of the species? As soon as we maintain the same volumes in tree, it is overall fine, isn't it?

I think there is a misunderstanding in my calculation. If one pair of shoes last 3 times longer, then you investment is divided by 3. The same for load factor. If you use your shoes one every 2 days, you need to buy 2 times more shoes.

I am not pretending to have exact numbers but we should have some orders of magnitude in our heads.

Let's pretend that our electricity is running fully in nuclear wrt. fully in wind turbines/PV: load factor is around 0.7/0.8 (against 0.2) so costs increase by x3-4, life expectancy is 60-80 y against 20-30 years (x2-3), nuclear does not require a new electric grid, whereas renewable energies does (cost ~x1.5), nuclear works better with a low storage (10%) whereas PV/WT want 50-60% of storage (cost x2-4) and cost of building/recycling for a kwh is around 3-5k€ against 1-1.5k€ for WT (idk for PV) (cost %2-4). At the end of the day, the capex/kWh is indeed one order of magnitude higher for WT/PV than for nuclear. I am not pretending those numbers are exact but I think it reflects the order of magnitude.

For the 4th claim, the issue is that prices are much lower that what they were supposed to be, and that is why, the field will need to be heavily subsidized for a long term.

What I support, it is not to globally spending less money into energy transition. I really hope governments will spend much more than nowadays. But, I just hope we focus on reducing our economical dependency on fuels/coals to preserve a bit of our current comfort while not killing every year several millions of people with fine particles (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents).

Give me USD 2 trillions, and I will 1) ban coal generated electricity, 2) ban any vehicles that consume more than 2L/100 km, 3) insulate any existing buildings (and not only new buildings as our policy makers do, since old buildings stay for roughly 100 years), 4) subsidy heavily heat pomp. But I will certainly not close any nuclear power plants.

I know it is almost impossible to ask such requests to Europeans, but this is the only plausible solutions I have heard of.

A good reason for the drop of electricity use is the increasing price of electricity due to fuel increasing prices for extractions + investments in renewable energies

Yup. Fuels + coals are directly killing a few millions per year because the storage is the atmosphere. There is no green source of energy, but some sources (hydro, nuclear, renewables) are several orders of magnitude more letals than other sources, whereas some sources are several orders of magnitude cheaper than renewable energies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents)

Let's not forget that:

- CO2 emissions of Germany is still 5 times more than a comparable (similar GDP/flatness/weather) than France for electricity production [1];

- Electricity production is roughly a third of all final energy and CO2 emissions come mainly from coal and fuel [2]. Two threats for which Germany has done very little for now.

- Germany is spending around 2 billions of dollars [3] for renewable energies, whereas it would have cost more than 50x less with nuclear, allowing to spend the rest of this investment into building insulation and thermal renewable energies.

- PV investments were computed from past market prices, not with the negative price obtained with non controllable source of energy [3]. Germany is only at the beginning of energy subsidies.

Investing in photovoltaics is politically efficient, not environmentally efficient. Please let's stop to focus on renewable electricity. Let's start focusing on carbon-less solutions. The hard problem is about coal and fuel.

The situation could not be more urgent, since conventional oil has reached its peak. Not removing our dependency on oil is strongly damaging for our economies. Focusing on non controllable sources of energy is just accelerating the damages. Please see https://jancovici.com/en/ for more convincing arguments :)

[1] - https://electricitymap.tmrow.co

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energ...

[3] - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_re...

[4] - https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-...

Well comparison of Tchernobyl has its limits also. For sure now coal miners would not be sent on the core. But also, nowadays, nuclear power is a much more mature technology. 3rd generation (EPR) are extremely safe: it can resist to a 8m-height wave or a plane crash!

Anyways, even by accepting a death roll of 4k (the biggest estimate of death for nuclear power) over 70 years, it has a lower death rate than wind turbines or PV (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...). Energy has a human price, and nuclear is definitely not the most costly energy source.

The goal of our generation is to live in a world where coal and fuel are never used. Coal represents 36% of world CO2 emissions and kills every year several millions of people. But coal is one the cheapest and most reliable energy source, while being generally well politically accepted by populations.

To remove coal, when you can't install hydro, you need nuclear. Please don't tell me wind turbines will save us from coal, because Danemark has enough wind turbines to run (and a perfect spot for offshore wind turbines) but no real storage tech, and thus its burns a lot of coal.

Airplane is just 2% of world CO2 emissions. It makes sense of course to reduce it, but at the world scale, farming and coal are the real burden!