Any books on clean/renewable energy to actually get me a correct picture of the strengths and weaknesses of using it?

Any books on clean/renewable energy to actually get me a correct picture of the strengths and weaknesses of using it?
I used to absolutely hate the stuff and think nuclear would solve everything but I also used to be a fucking retard so I think it's time I had a more realistic and studied idea of what is true and what is not.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thing is is impossible to only use clean/renewable energy. The only way is having a mix of both for now until we will manage to find something better than nuclear
    Sorry but I don't have any English books to recommend you

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but nobody is suggesting fully use renewable energy, you support a renewable power grid with natural gas. /misc/ loves to push that this is some idea pushed super hard by the israelites or something, but literally EVERY article and debate online is anti-renewable energy. Its almost impossible to find pro-renewable talking points and the arguments against it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As far as I know, there is no renewable energy that offers the same energy output to investment ratio as fossil fuels, so even if you don't fully replace fossil fuels, there's still a mathematical problem there and maybe that's why there are so few arguments in favor. What if the uncomfortable truth that we're not ready to accept is that there are no alternatives?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >until we will manage to find something better than nuclear
      We may be waiting centuries. Nuclear is a good option.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear is expensive, solar and wind is cheap as shit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The thing is is impossible to only use clean/renewable energy
      Retard. Covering 1% of the sahara with solar panels can provide enough power for the entire world.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can it provide enough power to install and maintain solar panels in the Sahara?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sure if putting solar panels in the sahara doesn't consume enough energy for the the entire world. Which it doesn't.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bright Green Lies is an indictment of green energy. Thorough, convincing, impassioned. Might not agree with

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean I agree with him a lot actually, but I just wonder what his solutions are. The renewable energy movement isn't going to save the environment and technology isn't going to save the environment, but replacing these carbon emitting forms of energy is a step in the right direction. Kaczynski was right, but that doesn't mean any steps even if they are backed by industry need to be shut down. I'll give it a read though and see if he goes over more solutions than in there thanks.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps he doesn't think there is a solution.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His solution is a complete teardown of capitalism, patriarchy and industrial society. It provides nothing of help to the idea of a zero carbon world.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Perhaps he thinks a zero-carbon world is a fantasy.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ok he can think what he wants but it's not a fantasy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can't recall any point in known history where there were net zero carbon emissions.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What? How can you be this retarded? Do yoy have any idea what net 0 emissions actually means?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >zero carbon world

            Its a silly goal. The only goal should be keeping the climate livable. All indications are we have a long way to go. There is even the possibility that burning all hydrocarbons we can access wouldn't actually be a problem.

            If the earth became as hot as it was when dinosaurs lived humans would still be fine. Perhaps better off, with more of the planet being farmable.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why is that the only goal? Shouldn't the health and dignity of the people take precedence? There are plenty of ways to keep the climate livable but with other enormous downsides.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Shouldn't the health and dignity of the people take precedence?

                Over the ability to survive? no. But what im saying is people wouldnt be less healthy if the earth was a little bit hotter. Also if we care about health we should be talking about regulating the naggers who sell children sugar candy and fried meats at every corner, not oil companies who are comparatively honest and good actors.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Survival of what? People, or people as a vague concept and number? I can think up all sorts of scenarios that preserve the climate at the expense of mass loss of human life, human health, and human dignity.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                hmm we should maximize survivability. Which will look something like GDP which you could say is a measure of our control over the universe. Less vague and more important than the concept of dignity.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why stop there? We should all upload ourselves to the cloud so we can live in the metaverse forever and pump our brains full of anti-depressants so we never risk our bodies dying. As a matter of fact, let's terraform the earth to remove all the sharp edges we could get hurt on.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That wouldn't actually increase our survivability. Losing our physical presence in the world.

                Your arguments would have a lot more merit if I said human happiness was the goal. Nerfing the world doesnt actually help humans survive either.

                I arrived at survival as the ultimate goal after a lot of thinking. I would be interested to hear if someone thought they had a better idea.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    unironically study engineering.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear is a no go. In my opinion only small minded homosexuals support it.

    Right now humans are already walking a tight rope. Most people still do not understand how precarious of a position we are in. Nuclear war could break out and render most of the earth uninhabitable at any moment.

    The idea of proliferation of fissable materials and technology is absolutely insane. We would be better off with massive energy shortages than resorting to nuclear.

    >but but first world nations with proper governments can handle it

    I wouldnt be so sure. Revolutions can happen and 100 years is the blink of an eye when we are talking about the long term survival of a species.

    Also, even if only "stable first world democracies" are allowed to have nuclear enegery that immediately gives everyone else in the world a very compelling and justifyable argument to persue the same for themselves. So that even if the UN were to unanimously say "only nations who already possess nuclear power may develop it farther". It would still undoubtedly lead to more proliferation in the world.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Accidents happen and always will happen.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes they do.

        And the fact that there WILL be opposition who want accidents to happen is just as sure. Could be individuals/terrorists/or foreign governments targeting nuclear facilities. But they will be targeted, given enough time. The more locations there are the higher the probability of a catastrophe. Do the nuclear engineers also plan for the possibility of someone flying a plane into their reactors? I doubt it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think they do actually. I think the only reason we can even feasibly talk about installing as solar panel farm in the Sahara is because there's already an extremely robust industrial system that can make these things doable and which runs on oil and gas. If that were to go away, you probably wouldn't even be able to do these things. It's like how people talk about the need for lithium for batteries, but it's not like lithium powers lithium mining. Oil does.

Your email address will not be published.