Few things before I get down talked

  • I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
  • I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.

You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.

  • Invest more money into Fusion Power.
  • Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
  • Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
  • Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
  • 2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
  • Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
  • Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
  • Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
  • Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
  • Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
  • War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.

This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.

🥺

    • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
      11·
      3 years ago

      The point is that the disasters getting worse not better. I have an entire community for fusion, I do not need videos, I in general give shits about videos.

        • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.mlOP
          22·
          3 years ago

          We are now on an off-topic level. Since I am not here to explain the science behind my proposal, I only clearly say we need to fund those projects more, use the money for it and not for nuclear and make the transition better now than later.

          However, I will address some things here.

          I actually saw her video, she is into science and involved into such topics. So, she is at least are more credible source then the typically YouTuber who stitches something together and thinks that this is reality. She usually makes her homework and she admitted struggling with the video, because its a delicate and complex problem. Hands down, this is not solvable anytime soon, I think 10, 20, 30 years. She mention older problems going back to the 80s when this idea started to gain more attraction because cold war problematic and the first actual research was done on a bigger scale outlining possible problems, that is important as it shows the history and the progression we made. Since then science evolved, we got better methods and it is close to finally run in the real world. This is important to mention. There are like with every tech problems, and it usually takes decades to fix, I mention it because this is key essence of my proposal. Use the time now and not later. The faster you start on researching into alternatives to more time you have to perfect the process.

          I give her points that she tries to explain the fusion reactor problems that actually exist, they are more or less correct, the numbers she mention or the underlying math is subject to another thread as this is controversial topic on its own, some say so others say other numbers and there are several systems with different outcomes, tokamak, iter and other systems work a bit different and their efficiency depends on various variables. It should be noted that those systems are TEST reactors, not the ones actually for mass producing energy, they are examples to test the math and the idea. Those are used to test the theory, final solution might look different based on how the outcome of those tests will be.

          I am absolutely not downplaying that there are still problems with fusion, the more I say we need to pump more money into research to get this finally running.

          I am not here debating numbers, because they might change with further improvements.

          I think she outlined also the same as I said

          • Resources are limited
          • We need to check on what research we invest into
          • Marketing is bad, btw on both ends - Fusion as well as Nuclear - on both ends they typically play with useless numbers to make it look better than it actually - currently - is. I am not really going to debate this as this is pointless since no fusion is actually running 24 - 7 so those numbers and marketing is purely made by hopes, dreams and promises. Not to mention that when you change some variables you get other numbers. As she correctly mention q total vs q plasma.
          • My proposal directly mention that we should use wind, water etc more that are secure, even if there is a disaster, I typically plan with disasters and destruction on put this into consideration already. It is easier to rebuild than invest into an uncertain system with no end solution. The argumentation against this point of my proposal is something I cannot agree into, as nuclear is not a time stretcher because you shift problems and it did not helped the climate, we still have the issues, and I clearly outline that fusion is also not a end solution but it possible solves one problem to research into other problems that need to be solved. The difference here is that you do not store atomic bombs under your table, fusion energy radiation is ENTIRELY gone within 60-100 years, this is acceptable and more realistic to predict. Meaning I take this anytime over atomic waste that needs to be stored so long that governments will fundamentally change and the politics until then will also change fundamentally. Fusion simply, even if now imperfect simply provides a bigger opportunity in terms of long term planing, as the process can be improved over time and the risks are here much much less and more acceptable, the burden here is way less than with nuclear.