Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.

In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.

Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.

  • @undergroundoverground
    link
    21 month ago

    The problem is that there a major, major shortage of one of the isotopes needed to re-enrich weapons grade uranium (pu 238). Thats before you get to the vast energy inefficiency of doing it which isn’t a problem, if you’re just decommissioning them anyway and you don’t care about energy consumption. However, in this instance, you would need to worry about energy consumption as well as the isotope there won’t be enough of to convert even a fraction of it.

    Again, even if you had 100 years, there aren’t enough of the specialist minerals needed for hydro storage and renewables.

    Essentially theres" a hole in our bucket."

    The only answer is degrowth.

      • @undergroundoverground
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’m not saying it can’t be converted or that the amount couldn’t, if refined, potentially fuel America for a number of years. So, I’m not sure what the link was for. I said its not feasible, due to the inefficiency of doing it on mass.

        What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don’t have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won’t help, if you can’t convert motion into electricity.

        Even then, copper looks to be facing an impending shortage. More still, refining enough silicone to supply the world with and keep up with increased demand of energy would have a colossal carbon footprint, almost big enough to cancel out the benefit. You’ll have to start refining soil thats 0.000000000001% silicone before you got even halfway through. Yeah, we have loads of these things but getting enough of it, in a pure enough form, to power the whole world simply isn’t realistic.

        We can’t keep up with the speed that we increase our energy usage with the resources we have on the planet. Its a circular problem with only one solution. I’m not saying we have to go back to the primitive. We just have the treat the planet as though its resources are finite.

        They’ll sell us any flavour of distraction other than “work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more.” Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 month ago

          You seem to be trying to push a narrative that I don’t oppose as if I do. I support degrowth but your reasons are flawed.

          Pumped Hydro, solar, and wind don’t really use lithium, nickel, or cobalt. Those are mostly used in NCM Liion cells that none of these use. Permanent magnets would probably be the biggest headache tbh.

          Idk why we’d need silicone, we’re not making sex toys here. /s silicon is most common in sand and rocks, something there is plenty of basically everywhere.

          I don’t care what you’re saying for this circular problem. I’ve literally not addressed it once because I agree with you, I just don’t agree with your reasoning.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            Neo magnets would be an issue to scale, but there are previous generation magnet material that will work just fine. It’s not as strong is all.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 month ago

              Most of the big generators on the grid don’t even have permanent magnets. They use electromagnets. This means they need some electricity to be added to get them started up, but once they are running they are self-sustaining. Normally that initial jolt is provided by backup generator or by battery.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                130 days ago

                The posts are interesting (I didn’t look at all of them) but I am weary of accepting all the conclusions drawn. S/He states a lot of facts, but then does a “therefore it must be (this)”

          • @undergroundoverground
            link
            21 month ago

            Pushing a narrative is an interesting description of it.

            You have to be able to store energy from renewables. How do you plan to store it without those? How to you plan for the shortfall of natural energy compared to energy consumption when you can’t meet it with nuclear?

            I’m saying you because you’re claiming my reasons are flawed. I’m glad we agree on degrowth though.

            Its late here and maybe I got confused. I thought I was talking about refined silicon though. Even though that’s still wrong lol.

            If you’re refuting my reasons for degrowth on the basis that we can use nuclear and renewables to get around it, then its a circular problem. The energy needed to make enough to do it, with our current energy usage, with a rising population would cause so much carbon emissions. They’re just so inefficient.

            What would your reasons for degrowth be then? I’d genuinely like to know.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 month ago

              Go read my other comment. Batteries don’t need rare materials for grid scale storage. It’s the small ones in phones that need things like Nickel, Cobalt, and Lithium to be as energy dense as possible. Grid storage began phasing out Nickel and Cobalt a while ago and will eventually phase out Lithium as Sodium batteries get better and cheaper.

              Current nuclear is a sad joke compared to what we learned we could do even 50 years ago. The initial investment for nuclear is always expensive, but the pay off is cheap energy for like 40 or 50 years. While it does release CO2 to make new reactors there are ways around even that. Using less or no concrete would be a great start. Making iron is kind of hard though, I will give you that. Maybe we will have to switch to aluminum or something.

              Consumer electronics are probably the biggest problem we can’t solve right now. That’s why we need devices made to last and things like the right to repair. Getting rid of individual vehicles would really help too, as trains can accept power straight from the grid without needing huge batteries.

              • @undergroundoverground
                link
                029 days ago

                But they haven’t phased them out and we have nothing close to the grid storage we would need to switch to renewables. Even then, they will never provide the amount of energy we need to meet current usage.

                At our current rate of usage, we will run out of viable uranium sources within 80 years. If we switched the worlds energy to nuclear, it wouldn’t last 5.

                The only realistic option is for the world to use less.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  129 days ago

                  At our current rate of usage, we will run out of viable uranium sources within 80 years. If we switched the worlds energy to nuclear, it wouldn’t last 5.

                  This is completely absurd as I keep telling you. The vast majority of the uranium in “spent” nuclear fuel is untouched. Current reactors are a joke compared to what even the Soviet Union could come up with in 1980. Imagine leaving over 90% of your meal on the table and calling it spent.

                  • @undergroundoverground
                    link
                    029 days ago

                    You can declare it to be thus and such all you like. I keel telling you, we will run out of what we know exists now within 80 or 90 years, at current usage.

                    You just don’t like it and that’s not the same as it not being true.

                    I keep telling you, the energy cost of doing it makes it non viable, as any kind of meaningful solution but you keep repeating it all the same.

        • @aesthelete
          link
          51 month ago

          They’ll sell us any flavour of distraction other than “work less, do less, slow down and enjoy life more.” Whatever way you cut it, its the only answer.

          It’s really telling that this is regarded as such a terrible thing by almost everyone.

          • LustyArgonianMana
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Thank your local homeless person for doing their part in degrowth and underconsumption. Socrates and Jesus were finally vindicated. They really are the saints here.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          What about the energy transition materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt? We don’t have enough of those. All the windmills in the world won’t help, if you can’t convert motion into electricity.

          We literally don’t need any of those. Grid scale storage I don’t think has used Nickel and Cobalt for some time, as the best way is to use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries which need fewer replacements (longer cycle life) and are less volatile (explosive). Sodium batteries remove the need for even Lithium. Sodium is many times more abundant btw. As bad as they are Lead Acid batteries are also an option, as well as many other battery technologies made with less rare earth materials. Heck you could just do pumped hydro and not worry about batteries at all.

          You also don’t need any of those materials to make electricity from motion. A generator is a fairly simple device needing only coils of wire and a few moving parts. Some need permanent magnets but even that isn’t hard really. Storing power was always the problem, not making it.

          Likewise current reactors are a joke in terms of fuel efficiency. Basing any estimate on current reactor technology being used is kind of silly, as we already know we can do so much better. The majority of earth’s nuclear fuel is in fertile materials, not fissile materials. We have known this for a long time by the way. Decades ago countries like the USA and Japan were doing research into reactors using U-238, more than 100 times as abundant as U-235. It has been demonstrated that breeder reactors for Plutonium from U-238 are feasible even 50 or 60 years ago. The reason we don’t do this is because U-235 reactors were determined to be cheaper, and probably safer. I think sacrificing some safety and cost is necessary when up against something like climate change. With modern technology I am sure safety issues could be reduced or eliminated. Likewise Thorium is a thing, but that’s more experimental than U-238 to Plutonium technology.

          If we are talking about solar panels: just don’t. Solar panels are mostly glass and silicon. I believe some rarer materials are needed to make them as efficient as they are now, but that doesn’t mean they are actually needed. In fact why bother with solar panels at all? They aren’t even the most efficient way of turning solar power into useful energy. Solar systems that work using mirrors to heat molten salt have their own energy storage built-in, and don’t require exotic materials, and are more efficient anyway. They might require more investment, or be more complex to deploy, but overall they are a great option.

          Degrowth might be necessary in the short term. Long term wise though humanity very much has room to grow further. We haven’t even talked about mining the moon yet, and if we can’t do that we are very much screwed anyway. Being dependant on one planet is horrifically bad for long term survivability. You think climate change is an extinction level event? Try a gamma ray blast from a pulsar.

          All you’ve really demonstrated is that you don’t understand technology specifically renewables and nuclear. There is a real concern with lack of rare materials, but not for renewables. The real issue is computers. Modern computers and especially smartphones need a lot of rare things. So constantly replacing your smartphone might not be practical anymore, and things like battery life and processing speed might actually get worse for a while as we are forced to use alternative materials. Not really a huge deal in the scheme of things though.

          Also thinking the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate is hilarious. They use more resources per person obviously, but the number of them is also really small. If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes. Don’t get me wrong oil executives are a real issue because of how they effect government policy and the behaviour of the rest of society. They do deserve a significant share of the blame. Not every rich person is an oil executive though. Having ultra rich people around is bad but this isn’t the reason why.

          • @undergroundoverground
            link
            129 days ago

            You don’t need any of those things…well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about…

            Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it’ll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. Thats before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.

            You’re attempting to argue that I don’t know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you’re talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.

            The fucking moon

            No wonder you found it so funny. I never said “the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate.” Honestly, you’re hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.

            You’ve failed so hard at an “akshually” but please do carry on. As I guessed, you’re against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.

            Just want to leave this here, in case you choose to delete it later

            If you actually looked into it you would probably find that lost of the consuming of resources is to support the lower and middle classes

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              129 days ago

              You don’t need any of those things…well other than the nickel in the coils I specificallymention and the other components that I clearly know nothing about…

              Nickel in generator coils? What? They are mode from copper. Sometimes aluminum because it’s cheaper than copper. The majority of nickel isn’t even used in things like batteries, it’s used to make steel alloys like stainless steel and heat resistant alloys used for engine parts. Also you keep pretending all of these material aren’t recyclable. Metals can be reshaped an indefinite number of times. It’s like arguing you can only use water once.

              Pipe dreams are lovely and all that but until we have something more solid, its best to dismiss the use of other isotopes as it’ll take a decade just to build the power station needed to make the energy. That’s before we get to the time it will actually take to fully research it all.

              I am not talking about a pipedream. I am talking about something that was actually implemented in the soviet union. This isn’t Thorium that has never had a commerical implementation that was successful. Both of these reactors are still operational:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

              There is even a third one that has now been decommissioned, but still operated for around 20 years.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor

              You’re attempting to argue that I don’t know about renewables or the technology necessary to go green and you’re talking about mining THE MOON in order to, wait for it, lower carbon emissions of all things.

              The fucking moon

              You’re lost again. I am talking about doing that in the long term after we have decarbonized.

              No wonder you found it so funny. I never said “the rich elite are the only people consuming things at an unsustainable rate.” Honestly, you’re hilarious for attempting to twist what was said into that. Have some intellectual integrity please.

              Given you kept talking about the elite and how they can’t exist in your degrowth scenario, it seemed to me that blame was implied. I am not being dishonest here. If anything you are the one changing goal posts by doing the whole I didn’t say that routine when it’s clearly implied.

              You’ve failed so hard at an “akshually” but please do carry on. As I guessed, you’re against degrowth as anything but a temporary measure and rather than having the spine to come out and stand for it, you try waffle instead.

              Yes. Did I not say it isn’t necessary in the long term? I thought I stated it pretty clearly. I don’t support long term degrowth anymore than I support shrinking the human population long term. Maybe the population of earth specifically, but not the population of all humanity.

              I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you’ve found something you can’t dispute.

              • @undergroundoverground
                link
                129 days ago

                Good job there isn’t a copper shortage coming …

                Oh wait

                Nickel is used in the alloys needed in wind turbines and solar panels.

                Theres no factual basis to what you’re saying. You’re just declaring utter bollocks to be thus and such.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

                Youre saying they don’t use uranium or are you trying to move the goal posts again?

                Oh, I see, mining the moon is a solution for when we’ve already fixed the problem. No wonder it was so confusing.

                it seemed to me that blame was implied.

                No, you just made that up and its not implied. They can’t exist without vast amounts of excess labour being undertaken. Im saying its two birds with one stone. That doesn’t mean I’m saying that they made all the emissions. If that’s genuinely what you read from those words then you have a problem. Youre just grasping at straws here.

                It took a long time to drag out of you.

                Well, far be for me to have to explain to you the finite nature of the planet you find yourself on. Who knows, maybe perpetual growth on a finite planet is possible? Maybe all the scientists and the laws on entropy are wrong and youre right? Maybe thats a thing that could happen in the real world?

                I am still waiting for a response to that last quote. I think you’ve found something you can’t dispute.

                Omg, yeah, you got me. I can’t dispute that there are more “lower” and middle class people in the world. Well done you.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  129 days ago

                  Youre saying they don’t use uranium or are you trying to move the goal posts again?

                  Nope not at all. Do you understand what an isotope is? The vast majority of Uranium on earth is U-238. Ordinary reactors mainly use U-235 with less usage of U-238. If you look at the composition of “spent” fuel you would see most of it is unreacted Uranium. Likewise the depleted uranium produced in manufacturing new reactor fuel can also be used by turning it into Plutonium.

                  Normally when people talk about running out of Uranium they are talking about U-235. Since you have provided no source I can only presume this is what you mean. If you could link your source we could actually talk about it.

                  You might want to actually read up on closing the fuel cycle, this is where you reuse previously used fuel. One of the reactors I am talking about uses plutonium as part of it’s fuel source. Plutonium can only have come from other reactors, meaning it’s reusing either material from nuclear weapons that was originally produced in military reactors, or from waste produced by other civilian power reactors. It’s called a breeder reactor because it produces more fissile material than it actually burns. This fissile material comes from converting fertile U-238 into fissile Plutonium. All of this stuff is a google search away.

                  Here are some places you can start learning about this stuff:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium

                  This is again without getting into the Thorium fuel cycle which involves converting Thorium-232 into Uranium-233. This has been done before in the USA but only on a small scale. If this could be scaled up you could make your own Uranium without mining it. It would require some U-235 to start with but would become self-sustaining in a couple of years. You can read about it here:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

                  Oh, I see, mining the moon is a solution for when we’ve already fixed the problem. No wonder it was so confusing

                  I am talking about plans for expansion once the global warming situation is resolved. I probably should have stated this more clearly which is my fault. I apologize for causing confusion.

                  Also pretending Nuclear is the only option is even more funny. Solar and wind are the cheaper energy sources. There are plenty of other options too like geothermal, tidal, hydro, and so on.

                  Honestly man just take the loss and actually read up on stuff next time. It’s great for your education to actually learn how science and technology works, instead of grasping at straws. You’ve painted yourself into a corner where regardless of whether you are correct or not you don’t actually understand enough to defend your arguments. You aren’t informed enough to determine if things like degrowth are actually necessary or not. Heck I am not informed enough to make those decisions either, and I understand this stuff better than you do, especially the basics of nuclear fuel cycles. Ultimately this comes down to engineering and scientific considerations, and frankly you don’t strike me as an engineer. While I am a scientist this isn’t my area either, and I shouldn’t be called on to make policy decisions in this area.

                  • @undergroundoverground
                    link
                    129 days ago

                    I mean, you could Google “uranium shortage” and find what you need very quickly. Again, I’m not spending my evening teaching you and providing you with sources that you’re unable to refute in any way, despite your best efforts. I’m sure you’ve convinced yourself that anyone who doesn’t do that for you must be wrong but thats just not how the world works.

                    I’ve already told you how there isn’t enough of the materials we need to make sufficient numbers of solar panels or wind turbines, let alone figure out a way to store the energy for when we need it later.

                    Why is the default position that there has to be enough of what we need to do that, unless proven wrong?

                    Degrowth doesn’t have to mean smaller.

                    I used to do research too but then I left for a career that paid more. Not that something like that would make me right or more believable, of course. No, that would be ridiculous.

                    Im not really sure why you decided to bring up your career in an unrelated field. Honestly, if I was arguing for perpetual growth on a finite planet, I wouldn’t tell anyone I was a scientist, let alone demand someone “take the L” for having to explain to you that our energy consumption can’t grow perpetually.