And a relevant article from Carbon Brief:

Clean energy pushes fossil-fuel power into reverse for ‘first time ever’

Renewable energy has overtaken coal to become the world’s largest source of electricity in 2025, according to thinktank Ember.

That sounds like an excellent idea, so on a similar note I could suggest to go to shops that sell clothes for kitchen professionals. I have owned plenty of those, mainly trousers. They are super comfy and they kinda last forever.

I did a little bit of digging on this and if it looks like sand batteries are a subcategory of thermal batteries, which in their turn are part of what is called thermal energy storage . Wiki mentioned something that I found fascinating and that I totally didn’t know:

Thermal batteries are very common, and include such familiar items as a hot water bottle. Early examples of thermal batteries include stone and mud cooking stoves, rocks placed in fires, and kilns.

Try and explain how lobbying currently works then, without including corruption

Sure corruption is not an invention of capitalism, but one of the problems of capitalism is that it promotes and favors corruption. Lobbyists are an easy example of what I mean.

It seems to me you are missing the point. This is an article about a new scientific discovery. It is not an article about how capitalist industries implement science.

Dammit, I wonder why this is, I mean it works for me. Actually I archived it bc I can’t access the original source.

Anyways, the article can be found here: https://www.ftm.eu/articles/next-food-crisis-big-five-speculation I hope this works for you

I am saying “isn’t earmarked for the federal government” and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.

No. “Isn’t earmarked for the federal government” is not the same as “isn’t earmarked for military use".

Any links to back what you say would be highly appreciated.

I’m really sorry that this is what you got from what I wrote. I definitely don’t think we should keep using fossil fuel. On the contrary, I am all in for phasing out extractions and usage.

Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn’t earmarked for the federal government

According to a factcheck site it looks like the U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use. So maybe your statement is wrong? Otherwise could you share the source you got this from?

the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy

I don’t understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about “consumption” I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of “utilizing”.

I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don’t agree with this approach because of something I learned today.

He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.

Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?

Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.

I tend to agree with several things you talk about, but I have the impression we see things differently. For example, on one hand I agree with you when you say that we cannot let the Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners to just produce even a single new piece of plastic, but on the other hand for me the root of the problem is that the extraction of oil worldwide is still expanding instead of phasing out. Meaning that, as long as this is the case, more and more plastic will be produced.

Apart from that, of course bacteria eating plastics sound like a great option, but they are not the only way to get rid of plastics. Some alternatives would be fungi that “eat” plastic, or mycelium that replace plastics. Here are some relevant articles.

This podcast is about organising, solidarity, and ways that bring people together. Legal action part of their repertoir, but they don’t just do that.

The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

- If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

• Having a potential solution in the works for nuclear waste is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

Edit: The strikethrough, because it looks like the decommissioning of nuclear power plants was not reliably assessed after all. To be more precise, this is the 2012 meta study that is used for the g CO2e/kWh from nuclear decommissioning, and that I had difficulty finding. It clearly states:

Decommissioning was not usually described in detail; when described, most seem to closely resemble only “immediate dismantling,” not full decommissioning (see the Downstream Processes section of the supporting information on the Web).

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear power station can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

Edit: I looked a bit more into decommissioning and found the following from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thought of sharing for easier visualisation

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

• France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point | Reuters
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia | Greenpeace

Thanks for this, it’s the first time I hear about this and it certainly sounds very interesting. I’m gonna look more into this as soon as I find the time. In the meantime, if you know more about them and feel like sharing about your experience using them, or anything actually, I’ll be glad to have your input.

May I also suggest something? Perhaps add in the post title something like anti-marketplace or anything like that, so that it is a bit clearer what they are for those of us who don’t know. (English is not my first language and just woke up, but still silly me, by reading the title I thought they were currency exchange apps. And now my coffee is ready!)

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (…) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built