Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. CONTEXT

CONTEXT

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
petromafiaconsumerism
131 Indlæg 39 Posters 1 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • benhm3@saint-paul.usB benhm3@saint-paul.us

    @GhostOnTheHalfShell @anthropy @benroyce @blogdiva

    I’m sorry Ghost, you’re wrong. You’ve been mislead by oil companies to confuse things like power and energy.

    Try this video. But stop at the end-credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

    For the rest of my people, watch the post-roll and put it on loop.

    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #121

    @BenHM3

    have watched that video. nowhere in it does he actually address the environmental destruction that comes from exponential growth extracting, aluminum, copper, silver, nickel, and lithium.

    To extract and purify the resources is necessary to transform power generation requires destroying the planet in the process.

    The resource extraction and refinement industry is no different than big oil.

    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • adriano@lile.clA adriano@lile.cl

      @c_merriweather At that income level, these problems are best solved through clean public transport. I know it's very hard to achieve in the USA outside large cities, but that's happening right now here in Santiago de Chile: the bus fleet is modernizing with electric vehicles which are also much more comfortable. @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva @benroyce

      benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
      benroyce@mastodon.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #122

      @adriano @c_merriweather @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

      as an american, i envy the commitment to mass transit in other countries. the usa is really pathetic on this topic

      adriano@lile.clA 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

        @BenHM3

        have watched that video. nowhere in it does he actually address the environmental destruction that comes from exponential growth extracting, aluminum, copper, silver, nickel, and lithium.

        To extract and purify the resources is necessary to transform power generation requires destroying the planet in the process.

        The resource extraction and refinement industry is no different than big oil.

        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #123

        @BenHM3

        Furthermore, he uses a false equivalence between lead recycling in lead acid batteries other technologies like PV or wind turbines.

        These are not equivalent artifacts in terms of recycling. Building panels or turbines from new resources is less expensive than using recycled resources.

        Extracting one material from these devices, usually precludes extracting other materials from these devices.

        ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • c_merriweather@social.linux.pizzaC c_merriweather@social.linux.pizza

          @anthropy

          Folks like me don't have $ to buy "new" cars, EV or not. Survivor's benefits are at poverty level.

          @adriano @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva @benroyce

          anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
          anthropy@mastodon.derg.nzA This user is from outside of this forum
          anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #124

          @c_merriweather @adriano @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva @benroyce I 100% get how tough that is, I've been there too. But these days second hand EVs are as cheap as normal cars, with less maintenance and fuel costs. only issue is range on those older models but if you don't need more than 100km between charges they're more than fine. And for less than 500 you can build an offgrid solar setup to charge it a bit with (2.5kw panels + offgrid inverter + 500Wh battery). I wish I had this back then tbh

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • benroyce@mastodon.socialB benroyce@mastodon.social

            @adriano @c_merriweather @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

            as an american, i envy the commitment to mass transit in other countries. the usa is really pathetic on this topic

            adriano@lile.clA This user is from outside of this forum
            adriano@lile.clA This user is from outside of this forum
            adriano@lile.cl
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #125

            @benroyce On the other hand, if they get it done in large metropolises like NYC, it will do *a lot*, I think. @c_merriweather @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

            benroyce@mastodon.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

              @BenHM3

              Furthermore, he uses a false equivalence between lead recycling in lead acid batteries other technologies like PV or wind turbines.

              These are not equivalent artifacts in terms of recycling. Building panels or turbines from new resources is less expensive than using recycled resources.

              Extracting one material from these devices, usually precludes extracting other materials from these devices.

              ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
              ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
              ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #126

              @BenHM3

              On top of this, you cannot build solar panels without burning down old growth forest because you need the carbon from them in order to manufacture PV. This is one reason why Chinese PV are so inexpensive. They burn up tons of carbon and tons of old growth forest in order to manufacture these things..

              The blind assertion that this is somehow less damaging is an assertion made without evidence.

              ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • adriano@lile.clA adriano@lile.cl

                @benroyce On the other hand, if they get it done in large metropolises like NYC, it will do *a lot*, I think. @c_merriweather @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                benroyce@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                benroyce@mastodon.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #127

                @adriano @c_merriweather @anthropy @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

                as previous resident of midtown manhattan, and now living way out in western new york, you don't have to convince me

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                  @BenHM3

                  On top of this, you cannot build solar panels without burning down old growth forest because you need the carbon from them in order to manufacture PV. This is one reason why Chinese PV are so inexpensive. They burn up tons of carbon and tons of old growth forest in order to manufacture these things..

                  The blind assertion that this is somehow less damaging is an assertion made without evidence.

                  ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                  ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                  ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #128

                  @BenHM3

                  So I’m going to ask you how tens of thousands of hectares of the natural do you think we can afford in order to not burn fossil fuels?

                  Fundamentally the mistaken assumption is that we can burn as much energy by changing our energy source and it will all work out.

                  This assertion is made without consider to whether or not the conversion itself can be born without killing the environment, so much that the outcome is no different than continuing to burn fossil fuels.

                  ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                    @BenHM3

                    So I’m going to ask you how tens of thousands of hectares of the natural do you think we can afford in order to not burn fossil fuels?

                    Fundamentally the mistaken assumption is that we can burn as much energy by changing our energy source and it will all work out.

                    This assertion is made without consider to whether or not the conversion itself can be born without killing the environment, so much that the outcome is no different than continuing to burn fossil fuels.

                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG This user is from outside of this forum
                    ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #129

                    @BenHM3

                    Too much is too much. This is the fundamental point nobody is willing to come to terms with seemingly.

                    It’s a transition in the same outcome is not transitioning. The solution is not to keep burning fossil fuels. The solution is to cut back..

                    There is no other choice, but to get rid of cars, for example

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ghostonthehalfshell@masto.aiG ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai

                      @blogdiva @ArchaeoIain @jwcph @benroyce

                      that’s right. Capitalism is the global supply chain. To break capitalism, de couple from the global supply chain.

                      This is the most important problem to address.

                      jwcph@helvede.netJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jwcph@helvede.netJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jwcph@helvede.net
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #130

                      @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva @ArchaeoIain @benroyce OK, all of that is just fucking nonsense - but at least we agree that capitalism has to go. I'll leave it at that.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • nikatjef@holos.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nikatjef@holos.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nikatjef@holos.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #131

                        @benroyce@mastodon.social
                        We don't know the average life expectancy of EV batteries yet, but if they are sub-10 years, then the EV will never reach the green payoff.

                        Now comes the real meat of this discussion energy production emissions. Yes hydro-electric dams produce more harmful emissions than we previously thought, but that is for the first 20ish years as the vegetation in the resivoir degrades

                        3/?
                        @dnkboston@apobangpo.space @GhostOnTheHalfShell@masto.ai @blogdiva

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Svar
                        • Svar som emne
                        Login for at svare
                        • Ældste til nyeste
                        • Nyeste til ældste
                        • Most Votes


                        • Log ind

                        • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                        • Login or register to search.
                        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                        Graciously hosted by data.coop
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Hjem
                        • Seneste
                        • Etiketter
                        • Populære
                        • Verden
                        • Bruger
                        • Grupper