Solarpunk - 2nd Phase

The next Solarpunk thread is there! Would you believe it lainons, that in the humble history of this board, a discussion has hit the thread limit of fifteen score posts. Let's continue this fantastic discussion together! >As we are all claimoring for a better and more sustainable life, we find ourselves facing uncertainties, cynicism and daunting challenges in our desire to bring about the most daring and practical solutions to the ecological crisis in a bid to solve the conundrum of blending high technological progress, conspicuous energy consumption, and a heightened care for our world. More than ever, it is the human imagination that we call upon to establish the elaborate codes, hopeful values and vibrant symbols a new and positive genre of fiction, Solarpunk, where futurism and realism can finally coexist at the heart of a lively and blossoming environment that shall become an enduring pollution free legacy set in the intricate fiber of our collective existences for the centuries to come. Previous thread >>78190

>>85410 >Nuclear plants especially need ideal site selection for safety reasons and generally they end up very far from population centers. Not in Mother Russia. We are not being afraid of nuclear power, we embrace.

I keep thinking about the economic consequences of abundant cheap solar panels. They're already cheap, but the next generation perovskite panels promise to cost next to nothing, and will be produced in massive rolls. There's already little incentive to produce more power: the demand grows very slowly, so all you do by building a new plant is lower the price of electricity for some time, until the demand catches up. What if, at some point, we end up building too much solar or nuclear power, making the electricity cost around 0? Will the investors who already built the plants never get their investments back? Who will pay them for setting up the new plants if the demand outgrows the supply? If every neighborhood can satisfy its own power demands, will they still have to pay the same utility bill as before solarpunk, proportional to the used power, to maintain the power lines, transformers etc?

Albeit perhaps malformed, I can totally understand the desire for a truly hopeful and positive view of the future to oppose to a monotone cynicism that slowly eats you out, but it should not be mishandled. >>85392 There may be other desertic areas we could exploit, perhaps some closer to urban centers. I find concentrated solar power (CSP) to be a much better alternative and it relies on steam. Supposedly the technology it requires is far less advanced and pollutive than anything based on the multiplication of electronics that depend on rare earth materials and in theory we avoid the syndrome of "bird puree" of the never recycled wind turbines. I also find CSP to also be inherently beautiful. https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/how-300-000-mirrors-are-generating-electricity-in-the-california-desert/ Birds can still be harmed unfortunately but to much less degrees as the installations are located in rather hostile, empty and dry areas. Water is necessary for cooling but this should have never been considered a problem for an advanced society, especially one that can produce fresh water from sea water. As explained in the article below, https://ratedpower.com/blog/concentrated-solar-comeback/ >CSP transforms sunlight into electricity without emissions. Even the waste heat it generates can be repurposed for water desalination. I suppose that in turn it should prove more sustainable than the photovoltaic solar farms. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a30188222/elon-musk-solar-farm/ Obviously a blossoming and still very young technology would likely encounter many issues at first. If we're going to talk about Musk here we should remember the numerous failures of the initial SpaceX rockets until they nailed it perfectly. Crescent Dunes is one of these cases. https://www.solarpaces.org/what-happened-with-crescent-dunes/ Energy storage is improving too and moving away from molten salt. https://www.solarpaces.org/csp-experts-launch-solstor-energy-long-duration-storage-for-the-us/ https://www.solarpaces.org/heat-trap-demonstrated-in-quartz-at-over-1000c-for-solar-receivers/ To wrap this up, let's go back to the solar panel nightmare, which generates a whole unspoken issue in light of the constant barrage of positive support we get from all governments around the world: the solar trash wave. https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power >If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model, they can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than IRENA anticipates. That figure translates to around 315,000 metric tonnes of waste, based on an estimate of 90 tonnes per MW weight-to-power ratio. >Alarming as they are, these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger. >The High Cost of Solar Trash >The industry’s current circular capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge of waste that is likely to come. The financial incentive to invest in recycling has never been very strong in solar. While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material. The long life span of solar panels also serves to disincentivize innovation in this area. >As a result, solar’s production boom has left its recycling infrastructure in the dust. To give you some indication, First Solar is the sole U.S. panel manufacturer we know of with an up-and-running recycling initiative, which only applies to the company’s own products at a global capacity of two million panels per year. With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2. >The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness. If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early-replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031. By 2035, discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection. The economics of solar — so bright-seeming from the vantage point of 2021 — would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash. I suspect that the next step here would be to grow a whole recycling industry and obtain governmental grants as support. It's costly but can and must be done, but the cost is rather massive in comparison to how somehow affordable we're lead to believe PV tech is. >It’s Not Just Solar >The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind-turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled — a lag that automakers are racing to rectify as sales figures for electric cars continue to rise as much as 40% year-on-year. The only essential difference between these green technologies and solar panels is that the latter doubles as a revenue-generating engine for the consumer. Two separate profit-seeking actors — panel producers and the end consumer — thus must be satisfied in order for adoption to occur at scale.

>>85415 >It's also a huge stumbling block I wouldn't call it that huge. While solar power plants can't exactly mimic turbines right now, they're still quite able to produce useful power. You're really talking about making solar power more efficient and more fault-tolerant, not making it a viable technology. These are iterative improvements and massive strides have already been made in just the past decade. >You can puzzle over it for your own amusement while the world runs on nuclear for a while. We already have solar power plants, obviously they should be upgraded as the technology improves. It would be ridiculously wasteful to decommission plants before their end of useful life, or not extend their useful life if it is possible, because you don't like some minor aspects of the technology. That's exactly what they did with nuclear. >Hundred of volts or a few kV. ah, so you mean LVDC. Indeed it is useless for bulk transport, but this is exactly why most plants have just a dozen or so panels per inverter, and the voltage is immediately stepped up from there. I don't know if there are ways to step up voltage without a transformer, but I would assume it's the most efficient. >My brother and I worked solar install on rooftops for a while. I worked as a framer for about 6 months, doesn't mean I know anything about skyscrapers. >It will become more a problem in the future, just get back to me in a few years about this why? >>85416 I am quite aware of the situation in South Africa, but it's a fairly unique situation. Why would it happen elsewhere?

>>85534 >I am quite aware of the situation in South Africa, but it's a fairly unique situation. Why would it happen elsewhere? It's due to a demographic imbalance. While it would take a lot of effort to get there, any European nation that is walking the path of mass immigration is on a collision course with a similar phenomenon. The non indigenous populations are losing political power yet they remain the most lawful. Meanwhile the foreign groups accrue their power to the point of having representatives of their own people in key political seats while their communities further spread criminality.

Nuclear energy is the most efficent and envirormentally friendly energy source. The fossil fuel industry has put a concentrated effort into spreading propaganda that portrays nuclear energy as dangerous and evil. The propaganda has clearly worked, as pop-culture and the public consciousness thinks nuclear power plants are like the ones in the simpsons. If America doesn't get past this conception and start investing more into nuclear energy, then it's only a matter of time until other countries begin to surpass America one after another. Oh yeah, and climate change too.

>>85646 I quite agree. I just also think solar power is cool too.

>>85646 Its worse than just fud, positive reports got derezzed. ESG score forbids companies to say anything positive about nuclear unless they are willing to lose out on funding / pay more on loans. Unsurprisingly the creator is heavily invested in coal.

>>85650 https://www.nei.org/news/2022/nuclear-an-investible-esg-asset-according-to-cesg >In a stunning reversal earlier this year, Morgan Stanley called nuclear energy a “safe, reliable, and carbon-free source of energy.” And they’re not the only ones on Wall Street connecting the dots. https://www.blackrock.com/hk/en/products/229299/blackrock-new-energy-fund-a2-usd >The Fund does not currently commit to invest in fossil gas and/or nuclear energy related activities that comply with the EU Taxonomy, however, these investments may form part of the portfolio. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/esg-investors-warm-to-nuclear-power-after-eu-green-label-award-69002267 >"The perception is shifting" among environmental, social and governance investors, said Marina Petroleka, global head of ESG research at Sustainable Fitch. "Suddenly nuclear is back in the conversation."

>>85652 this capitalists are so fuarrrking stupid i swear to god this was the consensus 40 fuarrrkign years ago i hate stupid westzoid bankgambelrs

>>85665 Remember petrodollar. The value of their monopoly money is tied to fossil fuel value. The fabricated energy crisis also weakened europe as it is killing domestic industries. Its arguably effective economic warfare. They arent stupid. The guys who fell for it are.

>>85512 Look more like an industrial center. Metallurgy maybe. >>85534 >Major political shift of power >The new power give most public resources to themselves >0 investment in new infrastructure. Think nuclear for instance. >Jobs being offered by the members of the new dominating group, not to the most qualified >Every question become about the former and new power player >Whatever the question was, the answer is what please the new power >Minimal maintenance of existing infrastructure, if any >Open border multiply the population by 2 Seem familiar? Solarpunk in reality is you living offgrid thanks to solar panels but in the middle of a busy city with barbed wires all over your houses.

>>85646 Nuclear fanatics are dangerous and evil. There is no magic bullet, no purple juice that will solve the problem. The idea that fossil fuels can be replaced with nuclear is a stupid fantasy based on the idea that one single technology will be a reliable solution to a very complex problem. The cause of climate catastrophe is man's inability to live within his means. The fantasy of nuclear is based on the wrong headed idea that we can keep on going with our high energy, high consumption, lifestyles and some magic technology will just allow us to do that. It will not fix anything, only create more problems down stream, maybe ones different from the mess fossil fuels do but problems nevertheless. Man must learn to live within his means and no magical tech solution will fall from the sky and save the planet if he doesn't.

>>85673 Pretty much correct. We should reduce our electricity consumption, not expand it. That said, nuclear is still strictly better than oil & natural gas and France is proof that it would be a totally viable way to run a power grid.

>>85667 >The value of their monopoly money is tied to fossil fuel value. The value of their monopoly money is tied to their 10,000 nukes and the biggest military in the history of humanity. The petrodollar is just one of several schemes to create artificial demand for their monopoly money. >They arent stupid. The guys who fell for it are. Nobody fell for anything. It is clear at this point that the job of every "green" politician is to destroy their host country. Probably so that the weakened remains can be absorbed into an international political structure. That appears to be the connection between globalists and the climate agenda. >>85673 >Nuclear fanatics are dangerous and evil. >Man must learn to live within his means You do realize that is a euphemism for genociding the billions of people who simply cannot be fed without fossil fuels or nuclear energy. You're either too stupid to think that far ahead or you think that being an obedient slave will save you from the slaughter. Either way "dangerous and evil" more readily applies to you than anyone else ITT. >>85678 >We should reduce our electricity consumption, not expand it. Feel free to start with your internet router.

>>85679 >feel free to start with your internet router Yes please! The hardware and software of those routers could definitely be made much more efficient. The one I have runs a fuarrrking web server for configuration. A web server! I've also seen some that actually require you to install an app to configure them. It's disgusting. You're absolutely right that the first step is using more efficient computing devices and using them more efficiently! Or... maybe that's not what you meant? Did you mean to imply that any reduction in energy consumption is necessarily bad? What a silly notion!

>>85679 Assume no petrodollar. If budget drops military would also downsize = power loss. Taxing the controlled territory is a fundamental need to retain control.

>>85673 >Nuclear fanatics are dangerous and evil. You drank the kool-aid lmao >The idea that fossil fuels can be replaced with nuclear is a stupid fantasy based on the idea that one single technology will be a reliable solution to a very complex problem. The cause of climate catastrophe is man's inability to live within his means. The fantasy of nuclear is based on the wrong headed idea that we can keep on going with our high energy, high consumption, lifestyles and some magic technology will just allow us to do that. I never said that nuclear energy would magically fix every climate problem. Stop strawmanning. I'm saying it's the most practical alternative as of right now. The idea that every country in the world will magically cut down massively on their emissions all at once and stop climate change is even more of a fantasy. A switch to nuclear energy would still generate emissions and the like but it would still dramatically slow down the time we have left in order to give humanity more time to find a solution.

>>85683 >it's the most practical alternative as of right now. >A switch to nuclear energy would still generate emissions and the like but it would still dramatically slow down the time we have left in order to give humanity more time to find a solution. There are thousands of coal and oil power plants across all continents except Antarctica. Can these, or at least a significant portion of them, be reliably switched over to nuclear within a 15 year period? It takes about a decade to build a functioning nuclear power station and in low resource areas where infrastructure is poor, like parts of Africa or Latin America, it would probably take even longer. The majority of these countries can not afford to even build these power plants or the supply chains needed to keep them functioning. And should we really trust corrupt bureaucrats and US or Russian backed tinpot dictators to effectively steward nuclear plants when even experienced corporations in the nuclear industry cut corners? There are political considerations too. Most offensive nuclear weapons programs were seeded with technology and know how exported for civilian use via the Atoms for Peace program. If vast swathes of the Global South, or just any government the US doesn't like, are barred from participation due to weapon proliferation risks, then there is no way to exploit nuclear power at scale. Its simply not politically possible to build nuclear power plants in most countries without Washington throwing a fit. Sure, these countries could import to meet their energy needs, but they are more likely to turn to fossil fuels to get out under the boot of Yankee and Slavo-Russian imperialism or line the pocket of whoever runs the local military junta. Nuclear plants can't be built on the scale needed and even if they could they won't be built fast enough. And if we did do that, everyone and his mother would have nuclear weapons, vastly increasing the risk we might nuke each other to the stone age. Nuclear fetishizers are like a fat kid who's searching for a magic diet pill while everyone else eats scraps. Don't worry he tells us, soon we'll find a magic diet pill and magic food generation machine and liposuction will give me more time to find them so yay liposcution! when the real problem is this greedy pig is eating all of the fuarrrking food. >>85679 >You do realize that is a euphemism for genociding the billions of people Saying people should live within their means isn't a call for planetary genocide. Get your head out of your ass.

>>85673 You are correct, but answer this question: How do closing the already built nuclear power plants help fight climate change? If it don't, then explain why the people who want you to have less rights and less wealth to fight climate change support closing nuclear power plants. >Man must learn to live within his means Poor people and the middle class did more than their share with inflation and the new cost of energy. It's rich people's turn now, stop harassing the small guy. >>85700 >Saying people should live within their means isn't a call for planetary genocide. Not him, bu without modern mechanized farming tools, 80% of the world population starve to death. Perhaps the utopian plan you have for mankind require this decrease of the population to happen but many people including me will oppose this ideal on the basis of a fuarrrking Evrest of dead bodies.

>>85702 >How do closing the already built nuclear power plants help fight climate change? Never said it would. Sometimes decommissioning is necessary because plants are old or no longer financially viable. What nuclear fantasists often ignore is that just as oil barons bankroll climate denial, the nuclear industry bankrolls climate friendly nuclear messianism. Like all technologies, nuclear power has its limitations and drawbacks and isn't some divine magic bullet. >It's rich people's turn now, stop harassing the small guy. The current strategy for climate change is to make the rest of the world foot the bill. I find it unjust that whenever some great technological leap happens its claimed in the name of America or Western modernity or Soviet communism, but whenever things go wrong is suddenly humanity's fault as if some poor nomad in the Sahara or Eskimo is equally to blame as a billionaire oil baron in Texas. I'm not the one blaming the little guy, but we have to be honest. High energy consumer societies are eating away at the planet and creating massive social inequality. Unless you deal with that underlying socio-economic problem, there is no way to solve the climate crisis. There needs to be a change to more sustainable lifestyles but as soon as people in first world countries can't get their suede shoes at low prices and waste electricity on appliances they don't need, things won' t change. What they want is to have their cake and eat it too and the nuclear industry appeals to that naivety. I never said people shouldn't use mechanized tools. All I'm saying is use less, waste less, stop manufacturing and buying useless junk, and vice down on rampant consumerism and people's entitlement to waffle irons and other useless commodities that waste energy and up on the trash heap.

>>85703 >Sometimes decommissioning is necessary because plants are old or no longer financially viable. That's true, but it's not why Germany decided to go coal instead, why Fesheneim is closed or why Olkiluoto run at half its capacity. Climate change is real but it is intrumentalized by power hungry crooks who play on the human reaction to impending doom to give themselves more power and money. Nuclear energy is in their way, so they have to reduce it's importance. >Like all technologies, nuclear power has its limitations and drawbacks and isn't some divine magic bullet. Fusion nuclear power is much better than everything we saw so far, but you are right. This apply to solar power as well. Ain't no such thing as magic. >We have to be honest about who is to blame https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ 1/3 of all CO2 is created by just one country. You are right, it is time to point fingers. >But per capita Yes, it is most fair this way, but then we must separate continental China and the modern one. Just because they have a lot of third world province it does not give them the right to burn as if their was no tomorrow. Now click on the per capita button and tell me what you see.

>>85702 >without modern mechanized farming tools, 80% of the world population starve to death. "Living within your means" doesn't mean "kill yourself". Please, stop using straw man arguments.

>>85709 what living in the city does to a mf. i rather grow my own food and eletricity.

>>85710 You as an individual can do that but we can't feed a modern population on subsistence farming alone. Not even slavery can be efficient enough to feed our population without modern tools or chemistry.

>>85711 You're not wrong, but I would hope that on an industrial level we can find an equitable and humane balance. Most of these factories are nightmarish. Animals don't need to go through that just to put food on the table.

>>85711 thats why govs want demographic pressure..... i dont give a fuarrrk about other people tho

>>85712 Arguably we'd have to start eating less meat (not zero) and start paying more for it to make that happen. The conditions are nightmarish because land is expensive and they have to make the maximum meat for minimum cost. I for one would be perfectly happy making that very mild sacrifice, but it's something everyone needs to think about. >>85711 Indeed. Good thing literally nobody else is talking about going back to the stone age.

>>85714 >Indeed. Good thing literally nobody else is talking about going back to the stone age. more like horizon zero daw, ai is gonna wipe out a good percentage anyways, you will need to upskill

>>85714 >Organizing the Olympic game in Dubai.. Excuse me. The WINTER Olympic game in Dubai is fine >But we need to tax your meat to save the changing of the weather Surely, you understand how this is going to be a problem.

>>85716 Yes, those are definitely related, I am definitely proposing a tax on meat, and I am also the Olympic committee.

>>85646 >The nuclear energy industry has put a concentrated effort into spreading propaganda that portrays oil energy as dangerous and evil. >If America doesn't get past this conception and start investing more into fossil fuel, then it's only a matter of time until other countries begin to surpass America one after another. Oh yeah, and climate change too. Both fossil and nuclear techs have been equally attacked. And coal too. It's either muh carbon or muh fukushimoo. It's quite amusing that these gigantic wind turbines need lots of cement, starting with the huge blocky bases that are needed to firmly maintain them upright. >>85647 It's indeed cool, let's not lie, but the junkyard issue due to the cheap cost of dumping the panels instead of going through the very expensive recycling is completely blacked out. Yet the companies championing this green sustainability swim in accumulated trillions, literally. There is simply no true governmental power to deal with this logically, it's all about business and very shady agendas with a breaking of industries down the road and perhaps some kind of catastrophe and a famine. The latter which would easily be avoided if we let people grow healthy food in large quantities which is so easy to do in a sane economy, but so hard to accomplish in a system full of regulations that the big ones can easily avoid or deal with through their armies of lawyers and billion-funded lobbying, while smaller people and still relatively independent farmers are literally being destroyed decade on decade. The appeal of solarpunk is not misplaced but it's so naive.

>>85652 >OMG we were so wrong we just found out the beautiful truth about nuclear energy we are soooo sorry ORLY? Sounds like they peddled lies in order to damage the industry, which reduced the value of key assets (plants, exchange bonds, specialized shipping, uranium mining, even just plain electricity, etc.) to acquire them at much reduced prices and then relaunch them. It damaged the economies too. How don't you want to feel insulted? They move from one artificial crisis to another, always ruining the value of a nation's assets, before grabbing them for pennies. These people are criminals of the highest order.

>>85531 The drawback of concentrated thermal solar power is it literally vaporizes anything that flies into the area. Not that coal, gas, oil, large wind turbine, and nuclear do not also kill birds and insects, because they do. Maybe some kind of protective dome could be built without reducing power output? The operating temperatures are very high. Though I do wonder if these create any influence on near by climate worse than cities do if this is an issue or not. I suppose not since no one lives near them so no one is using AC to try to cool down. Which also raises the point of importance of design for optimum home climate regulation without using energy. >>85728 As I've brought up in the other thread there is more problems with nuclear than incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl both in realistic practicality and health consequences for some. It is okay as one thing but it's just a bad idea to abandon financing other energy technologies. Nuclear can never become a sole energy source even in the case of the holy grail of nuclear fusion it really needs to be one type of energy among others but ideally to allow a future for nuclear disarmament one can not rely on nuclear plants which can be easily converted to nuclear weapons factories and will always be used by the US as an excuse for maintaining their stockpile and in turn Russia maintaining theirs. Personally I still much prefer forms of power that can be localized, which prevents both corporate and government interference as well as shrinks the scale of damage a single outage or power surge could cause. You cant do that with nuclear bring a very central power grid on a mass scale. Too many people seem caught up in a science fiction vision of nuclear that idealizes it to mythological status just because how it works seems cool but really it's just steam power with extra steps like some other power plants.

>>85718 You opposition of outrageous waste of CO2 is a lot more mild than your support to take my money and rights. At some point, I have to ask the question, you know. >>85732 >Think of the insects! Is your opposition to nuclear power based on the social structures it need? Are we are trying to save the world and all of mankind from climate change, yes or no?

>>85733 Insects are part of the ecosystem which also influences life as a whole at least in limited areas. They arent the biggest issue and likely not as much as birds due to there being billions if not trillions of them. You just have to not forget the bigger picture. I wasn't arguing against it, I was who mentioned it multiple times in previous thread, just mentioning one thing to consider and gave a possible though difficult solution.

>>85734 years ago there were reports of something like 70% dying off due aggressive pesticides like gmo soykaf. I dont know how real it is but i remember saying a lot of insects in my early childhood i dont see anymore.

>>85739 *seeing not saying we used to have lots of different butterflies each year now they all gone. the other side effect is mosquito bites got worse because they lay eggs in water contaminated from farmer fields and inject the same soykaf when they bite.

>>85739 GMOs in themselves are a mixed bag, just certain kinds are modified to be more resistant to pesticides so sometimes but not always they indicate higher pesticide levels. Biggest issue with them is the pesticides and the lack of genetic diversity of the plants and changes to nutritional profiles that sometimes are bad, but sometimes good, and also the whole issue of the plants being copyrighted so farmers get sued for them just spreading when they had nothing to do with it it's some real bullshit Monsanto does. 70% of insects dying off? At first I thought you meant people lol There is a good documentary on agriculture called SEED: The Untold Story that covers that topic.

>certain kinds are modified to be more resistant to pesticides so sometimes but not always they indicate higher pesticide levels thats what i mentioned it for, worse pesticides enabled by gmo plants specifically made to surive them >changes to nutritional profiles that sometimes are bad is a problem predating gmo. Hybdridization already led to worse nutritional values as they solely focused on crop yield. The gluten intolerance is also a side effect of new wheat having 5x the allergen concentration. Whats even more criminal is efforts to ban old sorts including criminalizing people growing old crops to sell.

>>85749 > is a problem predating gmo. Yes, true. Crops were always selectively bred and for some cloned.

>>85715 >postap lady If only she had been that preddy...

>>85729 >how don't you want to feel insulted? Why would I want to feel insulted? I feel insulted when I'm insulted, not when I want to be. >they spread lies Antinuclear sentiment was strongest in the 70s and 80s, long before ESG investing or greenwashing were a thing. That is not how it was killed, and it doesn't seem like that was how it was kept down either -- if you look at the S&P global article, there was barely any change in investor attitudes before & after the EU gave nuclear the "green" stamp, and it was largely positive anyway. There has been a huge reversal of fortunes for the nuclear industry overall, both in terms of public perception and investment, in the past decade, probably driven by organizations such as the NEI. Maybe consider the degree to which propaganda is affecting you, as well, especially when you so readily and confidently said things that are simply false.

>>85797 >Antinuclear sentiment was strongest in the 70s and 80s, long before ESG investing or greenwashing were a thing. That is not how it was killed The plans to not built / deactivate running nuclear reactors were done post 2000 not in 80s. As for esg / greenwashing its pretty self evident too - if there was no reason to campaign against nuclear they wouldn't have invested resources.

>>85802 >The plans to not built / deactivate running nuclear reactors were done post 2000 not in 80s. not true. By 1990 the construction rate for nuclear plants was near historical rows. https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-reactor-construction-starts-and-duration-1949-2023/ It's interesting that literally less than a minute of research completely debunks all your unsourced claims... >if there was no reason to campaign against nuclear they wouldn't have invested resources. Did they invest resources, though? Or are you just assuming they did because nuclear had a bad reputation and SURELY there could be no other reason for that?

>>85803 >i found a website that agrees with me nobody cares, i remember the pr campaigns and discussions about whether we should build or deactivate reactors post 2000

>>85802 it also seems that, in the U.S. at least, the *only* reactor that was shut down recently due to environmental concerns was Diablo Canyon, and many states actually subsidize their nuclear reactors so their grid works better, even though otherwise they'd lose money, using "zero emission credits": https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46820/3

>>85806 I found numbers on the thing you're talking about, and they don't support your claim. Do you think Boston University, which collaborates heavily with Oak Ridge National Laboratiry, is an anti-nuclear talking head? >I 'member You remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011. That's what gave the anti-nuclear movement ammo to finally shut down Germany's nuclear program. jesus fuarrrking christ man you're actually talking like a 50 year old youtube commenter. Start talking sense.

>>85810 My claim was its irrelevant what you dig up about 80s because the same fight still existed post 2000. The sole reason investing into anti-nuke pr never died down is the fight about reactors never stopped.

>>85811 >My claim was its irrelevant what you dig up about 80s because the same fight still existed post 2000. Why would it be irrelevant? I believe this started about my reasoning here: >>85797 >Antinuclear sentiment was strongest in the 70s and 80s, long before ESG investing or greenwashing were a thing. That is not how it was killed, and it doesn't seem like that was how it was kept down either If the anti-nuclear movement predates widespread ESG investing by decades, and it was successful before then, what evidence do you have that ESG investing is the primary reason why nuclear energy was so unpopular and unprofitable? Why do you believe it? Something's not "self-evident" just because you believe it without evidence.

>>85813 I wouldnt say esg is the primary reason but i would say its part. Historically you had tchernobyl, people had a real reason to be afraid. But as time moves on new gen doesnt care cause they never seen it and old gen forgets just everyone stopped panicking over covid. Meanwhile the discussion on whether taxes go into building a reactor or elsewhere never dropped. Not to mention competing industries. Its no different from butter vs margarine funding research against each other. Everyone is running pr campaigns against competition.

>>85706 >Climate change is real but it is intrumentalized by power hungry crooks who play on the human reaction to impending doom to give themselves more power and money. Nuclear energy is in their way, so they have to reduce it's importance Does it not occur to you that the private nuclear industry is also full of profit hungry crooks who are also exploiting climate change to line their pockets by spreading nuclear messianism and painting anyone vaguely critical of their corporate practices as evil anti-nuclear conspiracy theorists? Fusion is still experimental, but assuming it worked flawlessly, would it be the best we have? It wouldn't make sense for a country like Iceland to operate nuclear plants when geothermal power stations can supply all of the island's energy needs and produce a surplus. What is best is whatever works best for any given community and its energy needs. Solar can work wonders for small rural villages and areas with high volcanism have great geothermal potential. The solution, apart from waste reduction, will be mixed, not holding up one single piece of tech as the best. Some Saudis (ever the post-colonial mimickers) want to build nuclear power plants when the solar option is much better for them. Turkey and Iran are obsessed with gas reserves when they have great potential for geothermal. >1/3 of all CO2 is created by just one country. You are right to separate continental China from its major coastal cities, but pointing the finger at nation-states is unhelpful when an issue is something that transcends national borders. Usually, its wastefulness of people who live in developed urban centers with complex consumer societies that are causing the damage, it doesn't matter which nation-state they happen to live in. Its just a coincidence (well a product of conquest really) that these types of urban "developed" centers exist in Europe and the United States. You can find them along the Chinese coast, Japan, and some urban neighborhoods in India and the Persian gulf. There is however the problem of imperialism. Those urban centers in the global north are organized into very powerful nations (the US, Russia, the EU) that exert a huge amount of power over smaller countries. They wager that they can keep living as they have been but that the global south, India, and China should cut emissions so they don't have to. Instead of cutting emissions equally, they will make the rest of the planet shoulder most of the burden so they can cut the least amount. Hence, the problem of climate change becomes the problem of getting an Ethiopian farmer to stop burning sticks to cook bread and if we can get every African to do what we won't then we can pump as much gas into the atmosphere and be as wasteful as we like since the other half of the planet is making up for it. This is extremely wishful and the consequences will be dire.

>>85822 its more like west outsources factories and thereby pollution to east and then claims oh you polluting you gotta pay for that ;) And the real irony is part of the appeal of outsourcing is that they can pollute uncontrolled to save costs on filtering sewage etc.

>>85673 Solve what problem exactly? Our society is complex. It rests on an intricate and fragile balance. Hell, even life itself is very fragile as we're always at the mercy of something lethal coming from the infinitely small or the infinitely large, from above or below. We have to accept that any human activity contains an amount of wastefulness that we can strive to reduce, but let's not kid ourselves thinking that we possess any way to make it perfect. It is a good thing to rely on a variety of power sources, some being more practical than others. When depending on a power grid, nuclear energy is the most efficient system. When needing independence and mobility, the combustion engine is most appropriate and if good money had been spent better, we'd have focused on having even more efficient engines burning less fuel and releasing less particles. Pollution will forever remain a problem of cities. In the Middle Ages, people would heat their houses by burning wood. Then coal, later on, for some. For every single house had a chimney. It was polluting. >The cause of climate catastrophe is man's inability to live within his means. Man has nothing to do with this and this same man always strove when possible to expand his means. Like living in the woods is only affordable and somehow sustainable in a region if few people do it. Otherwise you run out of wood and game and you need to establish some economy to develop new feeding means while importing some missing resources. >>85732 >The drawback of concentrated thermal solar power is it literally vaporizes anything that flies into the area. Considering where these installations are located there's not much to mourn for. Note anyway that any human exploitation of the environment removes something and a portion of the wildlife, even basic farming. We merely need to find a balance.

>>85678 >We should reduce our electricity consumption, not expand it. We can try to improve it, that said, to manage to get more for per kW, but production is directly tied to energy consumption. Maybe we could also attempt to lower our production too, we don't seem to need to build for example tons of garbage that we are struggling to absorb as "consumers". Do we need so many cars for starters? Maybe we also are simply too many on this planet? With our current infrastructures it's not hard to see how less congested everything would be with half of the population stuck commuting on roads. >France Maybe not such a good example. They were quite advanced in the civilian nuclear area and then for the last two decades they adopted silly measures which almost sabotaged whatever advance they had. But then some anons will say that it was self inflicted on purpose because of some secret political agenda.

>>85681 The US military budget kept ballooning at the expense of everything else because it was acting like the Roman Empire and meant to act as some kind of world police officer. A very questionable one at that. >>85683 That's a big IF, this assumption that those emissions are a serious problem at all. >>85700 And it's also assuming that some nations are technically qualified to build and maintain these very advanced and complex stations. It's probably a mistake to have decided to allow all sorts of nations to get into some industrial revolution of their own by being supported by foreign funds, materials and expertise, when in the end they would never prove capable of becoming autonomous. In other words, a certain type of development should only be accepted if it comes from people who are naturally capable of creating it and supporting it. Otherwise you're just selling illusions and creating massive problems for the future, and this is what we're living in now. Capitalism doesn't care, it wants the most profit out at the lowest cost, so letting third world countries becoming factory nations to sell crap to consumers so that few groups of people could walk to the bank happy every Saturday wasn't really the smartest thing to do. And now that most people have been raised in a modern way that makes them dependent on some frantic activity and endless production and growth, like some kind of cancer, it is hard to move a step back. All people are afraid of losing their comfort. Worst of all we thought that maybe a slight de-industrialization might be a smart to go through in some places but then again the idea has been hijacked and now we're seeing that people are being replaced my machines, so we maintain the same production but with even less people working. Wanna solve the joblessness? Impossible, so let's have some universal wage system instead. But in the end the money will end being swallowed by heavy taxation and big corporations that can, want and will sell their products to billions of people.

>>85703 >oil barons bankroll climate denial I'd really like to see evidence of this because we can all agree that the oil industry is extremely wealthy and yet the climate denial message has seldom been pushed in medias regardless of type. For what it's worth we could even argue that they went down without a fight. The climate deniers are often simple people with no great organizations to back them up, no money, no fancy websites with a hundred good recommendations by other great companies. It is striking as we really get a sense of a total lack of monetary support for those who would not even necessarily deny anything but who would appreciate even the most basic debate to be allowed in mainstream medias, which simply never happens. Therefore the idea that Big Oil is behind climate denial is not a serious claim and sounds way too silly to be taken at face value. >High energy consumer societies are eating away at the planet and creating massive social inequality. It would be very appreciated to know what you mean by social inequality. An advanced nation that uses more energy to grow more will obviously produce more wealth too, which is nothing new because it applies to any large town since Bronze Age days. Inequality, which is a loaded word, is used instead of saying difference, and that difference is neither unfair nor a crime in itself. >I never said people shouldn't use mechanized tools. All I'm saying is use less, waste less, stop manufacturing and buying useless junk, and vice down on rampant consumerism and people's entitlement to waffle irons and other useless commodities that waste energy and up on the trash heap. That I could easily agree on. But you will notice that the people who purport to solve the world problem and climate change (as if there were anything we could do about it) are also pushing for a fourth industrial revolution that introduces even more automatization, machines, electronics and computers, all of which requires even more energy consumption.

>>85706 >Fusion nuclear power is A complete pipe dream that never fails to disappoint, one that doesn't deliver at all. After decades of work on it nothing good came out of the billions wasted into this idea. It's laughable. No other new science and heavily researched new technology routinely failed to return anything on countless billions of investment like fusion power. It's flawed and likely based on an incorrect premise. There's probably a good reason why stars need to be that big to begin with. https://www.space.com/when-will-we-achieve-fusion-power >We've been 'close' to achieving fusion power for 50 years. When will it actually happen? So much time wasted. The best output we got during the last experiment around January and February of this year was a whopping sixty nine megajoules. Four years ago in Korea they managed to keep the *cough* "reactor" running for twenty seconds. That's it. What a sad joke. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40558758 >We will have to wait until the second half of the century for fusion reactors to start generating electricity, experts have announced. Wow, if that doesn't sound like a renewable scam, I don't know what does.

>>85848 >because we can all agree that the oil industry is extremely wealthy and yet the climate denial message has seldom been pushed in medias regardless of type You can find it in any comment section online, especially anonymous ones. Politicians constantly bring "is climate change real?" back into the public discourse and the "clean coal" campaign has skipped right over the idea of news coverage and just bought ad slots directly. Same effect, if not better. They know they'll never win by confronting the facts publicly or directly -- their researchers were some of the first to come to the same conclusion, after all. They have different tactics; after all, everyone knows lithium batteries are an incredibly dirty technology, solar cells are full of toxic chemicals and they're only good for a few years, and nobody knows what to do with the leftover wind turbine blades (and aren't they so loud and ugly?). Everyone knows there's no plan with what to do with all the nuclear waste, and remember all those horrible disasters! The whole environmentalist movement is full of woke liberals and you *know* you can't trust them! It's clearly too late anyway. And at the end of the day, don't you just want gas prices to go down?

>>85813 The anti-nuclear stance was possibly fueled by competing energy providers who relied on either oil or coal. At best you could say that it was dirty capitalism at work. Nowadays, the motivation behind the opposition to nuclear energy is ideological, or presented as such. It's the most efficient method we know of to extract energy per pound of fuel. >>85815 And after Fukushima several countries decided to update the security systems of their own nuclear power plants, which would still be totally useless if they were attacked. >>85822 >Does it not occur to you that the private nuclear industry is also full of profit hungry crooks who are also exploiting climate change to line their pockets by spreading nuclear messianism and painting anyone vaguely critical of their corporate practices as evil anti-nuclear conspiracy theorists? I am not seeing much of that messianism. The nuclear industry has been quite transparent about its gains and risks for what is now a well rounded technology. What is perhaps worrying is the push for recycling stored fuels and running on almost pure MOX, which requires a different cooling system and IIRC cannot rely on clear water but instead requires an opaque cooling fluid in the pool of rods. Few countries went close to full nuclear. Not even France entirely relied on nuclear since power dams are well used in that country too. Soviet Russia was also prone to champion the clean nuclear power while scorning the American neighbors who relied on coal plants. >Its just a coincidence (well a product of conquest really) that these types of urban "developed" centers exist in Europe and the United States. You can find them along the Chinese coast, Japan, and some urban neighborhoods in India and the Persian gulf. There is however the problem of imperialism. Imperialism based on consumerism, perhaps, but it's also the Western model that combines cheap energy and rapid urban and industrial growth. It's the accepted model because it's the cheapest and the most well known and best understood. In terms of offers that's all there was and it was easy to mimic. Now many nations are understanding that it has its flaws and are trying to alter it.

>>85857 >I am not seeing much of that messianism. Have you not been reading this thread and the one before? Supposedly nuclear power is the best thing since sliced bread and the only reason it's not everywhere is because (((globalists))) are keeping it down. Just because they're truthful about the technical benefits of nuclear does not mean it isn't propaganda.

>>85876 >Just because nuclear power is actually pretty safe and only as expensive as it is because of odious and absurd laws and regulations doesn't mean saying its great and we should have more of it and less ridiculous cost raising rules is not propaganda yeah I guess so

>>85700 You are right that it is currently infeasible for a lot of poorer countries to make the switch. Although I still think it's worth it for all the richer countries to still make the switch. 79 percent of emissions are generated in developed countries afterall. Obviously nuclear energy is not a cure-all solution to climate change, but it's better than doing fuarrrkall. Of course this is assuming any of the big imperialist countries would be willing to make such a change, which they likely wont since it wont fill their wallets more.

I repeat nuclear is NOT a real option to replace all the world's power. Fact the US government supports nuclear power should really clue you in. > Could nuclear power be rapidly expanded on a global scale? There are a number of practical limiting factors, including site availability and acceptability, nuclear waste disposal issues, and the risks of accidents and proliferation. But there are also a variety of resource limitations. One particular resource limitation that has not been clearly articulated in the nuclear debate thus far is the availability of the relatively scarce metals used in the construction of the reactor vessel and core. While this scarcity is not of immediate concern, it would present a hard limit to the ultimate expansion of nuclear power. This limit appears to be a harder one than the supply of uranium fuel. An increased demand for rare metals—such as hafnium, beryllium, zirconium, and niobium, for example—would also increase their price volatility and limit their rate of uptake in nuclear power stations. Metals used in the nuclear vessel eventually become radioactive and, on decommissioning, those with long half-lives cannot be recycled on timescales useful to human civilization. Thus, a large-scale expansion of nuclear power would reduce “elemental diversity” by depleting the world’s supply of some elements and making them unavailable to future generations. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340212459124

>>85877 Thanks for putting a bunch of words in my mouth. Again, just because you're truthful doesn't mean that you aren't spreading propaganda when you constantly harp about nuclear being an underdog that is only being suppressed because the elites don't like it.

>>85876 >Supposedly nuclear power is the best thing since sliced bread and the only reason it's not everywhere is because (((globalists))) are keeping it down. There is an ideological attack on nuclear power in developed countries that already had some of this technology deployed on their ground to varying extents. Some of these attacks were followed by political acts that proved disastrous and remain complicated to rationalize. And it is simply that good too, there is no real reason a country should abstain from it if it can afford it and isn't under international pressure because of a risk of proliferation of nuclear weaponry, which we know is one sided scare tactic. >Just because they're truthful about the technical benefits of nuclear does not mean it isn't propaganda. Not all propaganda is bad, stop reacting emotionally to the word. Whether it's truthful or not is what should matter. Somehow related: https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-nuclear-power-tracker/

>>85855 >You can find it in any comment section online, especially anonymous ones. That's not a sign of wealth, quite the contrary. >Politicians constantly bring "is climate change real?" In what country do you live in? In mine this is not the case. Climate change caused by man is a factual religion, disputing it is heresy. >back into the public discourse and the "clean coal" campaign has skipped right over the idea of news coverage and just bought ad slots directly. Where did that ad campaign happen? If they claim to run clean coal power plants, how do they filter the particles? What do they say about CO2, that big modern enemy? >They know they'll never win by confronting the facts publicly or directly Anthropic change deniers think they would never win. They are the ones begging for debates and an exposure of their own observations, ideas and data sets, as evidence during the previous thread: >>84678 >>84690 >>84691 >>84693 >>84695 >everyone knows lithium batteries are an incredibly dirty technology, solar cells are full of toxic chemicals and they're only good for a few years, and nobody knows what to do with the leftover wind turbine blades (and aren't they so loud and ugly?). Everyone knows there's no plan with what to do with all the nuclear waste, and remember all those horrible disasters! Because there has been no push for growing healthy and profitable recycling industries. It seems that now, only an authoritarian government or such a group of deciders could finally push the developed countries into facing the pollution and junkyard issue.

>>85897 >Where? Where? Where? I live in USA. "Clean coal" is literally a scam btw. >That's not a sign of wealth, quite the contrary. It's a sign of spending money strategically. >Anthropic change deniers think they would never win Exxon et al know they don't need to have their sh*ll go up on CNN to debate someone and get eviscerated because he can't say anything except "nuh uh" -- they just need someone in the comments to say "nuh uh" and post some alternative facts, and that works a whole lot better anyway.

>>85902 >people who post in the comments section have the true power!!! Come on lainon, you can't be that daft.

Let's make solarpunk less retarded. How can we salvage it and take this ill begotten "genre" from the hands of the useful idiots?

>>85927 well first of all it could use some basic clean up. Have to cleanse is of all its silly absurdities, have to cleanse it, dare I say, ethnically.

>>85925 Listen, do you trust what CNN says, or do you trust the infographics that lain posts? As noted, they don't really focus on trying to convince people that climate change isn't real. Mostly they focus on three things: 1) paying politicians to represent their interests 2) convincing people that even if climate change is real, there is no alternative to oil (i.e. funding anti-nuclear groups, funding studies about how bad solar panels are, etc.) 3) keep alive an "underground resistance" that appears to challenge the status quo. As evidenced by many recent elections, this absolutely can be just as effective as having your message blaring across the mainstream media. 4) diversifying into green tech so they're not fuarrrked if their strategy fails Appearing to be an underdog can have massive benefits, especially when you have none of the actual drawbacks of being an underdog. The oil industry's profits are gigantic and rising. Do you really think they're just sitting there and taking it while the big mean environmentalists destroy them?

>>85934 So, did you read the climategate e-mails yourself before dreaming that big oil has "the power"? Anyway, do you still live in a bluepilled fantasy where uncle Scrooges fighting for shiny monies are the ones who run the show and not an entity powerful enough to be above green vs black?

>>85934 >Listen, do you trust what CNN says, or do you trust the infographics that lain posts? Why would you trust CNN? It is a profit seeking corporation that will tell any lie to maximize shareholder value. You think that believing in climate change is part of your anti-capitalist identity but everything about the climate change narrative is funded by billionaires and corporations. >funding anti-nuclear groups, Why don't you tell us why every proponent environment activist group (Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil) are all strongly anti-nuclear? You can't have it both ways. From where I'm standing it's the climate cult that are being funded by big oil to stop nuclear power not the other way around. >As evidenced by many recent elections, this absolutely can be just as effective as having your message blaring across the mainstream media. The working class are getting crushed by inflation and record high energy prices. They don't give a fuarrrk about ukraine, or "trans rights" or global warming. The fact that you still haven't worked that out tells us what a disconnected privileged middle class brat you are. >diversifying into green tech so they're not fuarrrked if their strategy fails The only "green tech" that exists is government funded i.e. a scam to siphon tax money from workers into "green" corporations. >Appearing to be an underdog can have massive benefits Indeed, it's the 99% vs the 1% and buddy you are on the wrong side.

>>85934 >Listen, do you trust what CNN says, or do you trust the infographics that lain posts? Neither matters because I have no power. 1. It depends on the country, each case is different. Some countries will have no politician openly standing against the alarmism and the grave accusation lifted against humans that somehow we are killing Earth and responsible for the not so natural catastrophes that afflict more and more countries. Such voices if anything are a minority, which doesn't line up with the expected loud propaganda we should get coming from at least their side considering the vast wealth they still possess. There is simply no communication that lines up with the money they could throw at it. Maybe your country is a fantastic one where honest debates about climate change are the rage and available on TV 24/7, but not in mine and from what I see, there's no lobbying that seems to drag politicians back onto the pro-oil path that much. 2. There again this oil industry would have such a head start because of the immense wealth reserves it accumulated for a whole century that it would make no sense for it to be so poorly represented today unless it let it happen. Some nations even have public interests directly tied to partially nationalized oil industries, yet most major politicians completely abandon oil in favor of full electricity, so obviously it's not a question of money anymore, there is something else behind this. Oil provides autonomy. Electricity makes you directly dependent on the power grid and also requires your car to be stuffed with electronics, which like your smartphone, are leaking massive amounts of information in a kind of mobile IoT on four wheels. It can be hacked or deactivated from a distance. It may even be possible to create overloads on the car's system and the battery to generate internal damage and fires. Older cars have far less electronics, drivers are freer. 3. But do you realize that the side that seems to be able to totally monopolize the airwaves and academies with its anti-carbon message and that seems to have totally trampled the oil giants in the political arena would in all logic possess the same kind of resources to also nurture its own "underground resistance"? This simply does not add up. 4. They're most likely continuing selling all the oil possible while willingly preparing a departure out of it by funneling investments in other energy domains. >Do you really think they're just sitting there and taking it while the big mean environmentalists destroy them? No, see point 4 above. They keep selling the oil but are definitely not putting up much of a resistance against non-oil. Even the rich Middle Eastern dynasties came out a few years ago saying that they were now going to cut on the crazy expenses because oil reserves are dwindling. Either it's true and they are an old industry that will die one day so they have no choice but to move out, or all of this is a scam and they're going with the flow while knowing that in the future oil will make a big comeback through plastics for example, but participating directly in the world's change and increasing reliance on invasive electronics. Perhaps we should just stop evading the obvious explanation and call a cat a cat.

>>85935 >>85937 >But do you realize that the side that seems to be able to totally monopolize the airwaves and academies with its anti-carbon message and that seems to have totally trampled the oil giants in the political arena would in all logic possess the same kind of resources to also nurture its own "underground resistance"? They have the weight of scientific consensus and have been using it. They don't need to be "underground", they can publicly make their case. You are correct that there is no reason why the environmentalist "underground" would be any different. But this is fundamentally an asymmetrical conflict.

Hello, guys. this is the OP of the original thread. I actually participate in an institutionally-supported startup on Solarpunk concerning virtue investment of large capita, and had no idea this post would provoke such a vivacious response. I myself off-screen am in contact with the og Lainchan team. remember, the actually created document from the last post with the current central general social issues and movements associated with Solarpunk: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16clAav1GfsLpj3392YoeO4Xxgg_FN85w889njbkplDo/edit?usp=sharing so you can share/add your ideas the shared version of the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15oETJHLSNKJVQiNtU4Qm5KkJHDoF4WNhefIc5pLVMKc/edit?usp=sharing thanks for taking interest in the endeavor, & your brainstorming! feel free contact us on matrix if you wish. at @k1llercat:matrix.org , and i can add you all to a brainstorming group a Pinterest board for Solarpunk Inspiration & brainstorming of logistics: https://pin.it/3eJXiDH7e

Have a good day

>>85934 >do you trust idiots on CNN or do you trust your fellow internet schizos you, me, and everyone on here are crazy weirdos of a very particular couple of strains. Most people are not like us, and from my experience talking to comparative normal niggers, as well as other strains of crazy people, particularly about issues that are not their pet issues, the dominant narratives of the media weakly but continually rub off on them, even if they think they regard the media as suspect.

Ive avoided this thread because of the name as I dont really like the aesthetification of these sorts of things but maybe thats just one of the many signs im finally getting old and I need to not be so quick to judge. Ive actually always assumed this was just one thread for some reason even though that wouldnt make sense, surprised to learn this topic has had such a long life here. Clearly that speaks for itself about the merits of this discussion. You guys should create your own board, not because I dont like this topic here its just I imagine a community about this would be (mostly) more positive than lainchans cyberpunk focus. A yin to its yang, or I guess a yang to its yin, whichever is the sun and light one you get my point. Id probably enjoy posting there more at this point in my life. Maybe you could bring in the guys from the non depression spiral version of the vent thread.

I find the idea of the flying tampon-fans to be funny.

>>85946 They're a bit big though and they look oddly menacing, but in a cute way if that makes any sense. I fail to see how that would solve the destruction of the avian fauna though.

>>85939 Assuming this is true, have you taken time to read the former thread in its entirety and the current one too? I think it followed a contrarian path by nature of happening here in that bizarre place of all but the ongoing discussion would not be devoid of interest, do you agree? >virtue investment of large capita I don't know about that but it sounds like it's wasted money. Unless virtues are about to change a lot, it would seem better to invest on common sense and efficiency, even if it's more boring and less glittery than being able to go at conventions and say oh look I'm in this too because we believe in human value. Forgetting the virtue, making solar panels even cheaper while keeping them easy to repair and recycle would be nice. Are there any plans for massive investments in recycling businesses? It would be such an easy sell to governments, grants would rain like in a tropical forest.

>>85939 I took a look into those documents. They are almost empty. I wouldn't even call these documents, scribbles in a txt file at most. In the second one, that is barely bigger by a few words than the first, there's this mention >lessening of the economic activity in the Global North to make space for Global South Why would the GN need to sacrifice anything for the GS? That is unfair. Most of the developed countries and the highest research are in the GN.

>>85948 >sounds like it's wasted money esg investing has been proven to be a loss. Part of the problem is the metrics are easily exploited. Social activism is put together with environmental issues into one score so top500 companies outscore actual environmental preservation companies by virtue signaling hard.

>>85947 >fail to see how I can only imagine the hope would be to put them higher. Not sure how that works with the winds entirely but I think it still works OK. Vast majority of birds are relatively low. I think they just are included in these images because they look interesting

>>85953 Perhaps the worst issue would be the tether to start twisting if the floating fan is left unattended for weeks. They would also have to be very high not to kill migrating birds and other birds of prey that routinely fly higher. At some point these floating fans would be scratching on the lowest cloud layer, which would take us to another problem, that of thunder. The tether would have to be made of several types of isolated cables to take care of the normal alternate current and the sudden lightning surges on the other hand. To get back to the bird issue, any human presence and activity that reach high levels translate into losses of wild life population and that is not limited to birds. Many things kill birds too. Transparent windows turn out to be very lethal, where high rise modern buildings generate a high bird death rate. Wind turbines are barely registering in comparison, but that's also due to the lower quantity of turbines than anything else such as buildings or cars hitting birds. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/wind/wind-turbines-kill-too-many-birds-and-bats-how-can-we-make-them-safer >For nearly two decades, wind and wildlife ecologist Emma Bennett’s company, Elmoby Ecology, has been using canines to count the victims of wind turbines in southern Australia. The numbers are troubling. Each turbine yields four to six bird carcasses per year, part of an overall death toll from wind turbines that likely tops 10,000 annually for the whole of Australia (not including carcasses carried away by scavengers). Such deaths are in the hundreds of thousands in North America. Far worse are the numbers of dead bats: The dogs find between six and 20 of these per turbine annually, with tens of thousands believed to die each year in Australia. In North America, the number is close to a million. Whole numbers may appear dramatic but might be very small per turbine or when compared to the total population of the birds. Another issue exists when looking at what type of birds get killed. Those with a high reproduction rate at a lesser risk of being eradicated than rarer ones like condors and eagles. And where those turbines are built does matter too. https://diyseattle.com/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-turbines-worldwide/ >Will wind turbines kill the bald eagles? >Since the diet of Bald Eagles is primarily fish, when wind turbine developers begin constructing wind farms on our coasts or near lakes or rivers, the mortality rate for Bald Eagles will skyrocket. We cannot let this happen. The size of each traditionally designed industrial wind turbine is staggering. >Is it illegal to kill eagles? >It’s illegal to kill or harm eagles under the migratory bird act. However, a wide range of industries-from energy firms to manufacturing companies-have lobbied for years against enforcing the law for accidental bird deaths. Several options are studied to reduce the lethality of these wind turbines. Switching them off, using ultrasounds, painting them so they become much more visible. In the latter case it means good bye those nice white looking superblades.

>>85854 >two more decades

>>85971 >would have to be very high see chart related, its not that high but it is high. I imagine the particular pits and peaks of this plot might vary with season and region (saw a few that looked a bit different), but you can very much get to a height where there are very few strikes at all, 90% of plane strikes occur below 2kfeet. Likely that you could control height and angle to accommodate seasonal changes, by adjusting the groundcables. >twisting thats a problem but its hardly an insoluble one. They could be tethered together, or each with multiple ground lines to prevent and control unwanted movement, or placed on a pivot, IDK. Tethered blimps are a thing, even quite high altitude, even probably with not inconsiderable power requirements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Dew this guy apparently flew at like 10k feet and ran a radar, idk if active or passive). >Goodbye nice looking white superblades to be honest I have always enjoyed much more to look at coal power plants or other more industrial looking ones. As a kid I could spend hours just watching them. At best wind turbines are fairly inoffensive as eyesores go, in my humble opinion, the bird problem is just the poison icing on the bitter cake.

>>85971 Why is it that when wind power comes up it's always these big turbines not rooftop wind power?

>>85971 > Switching them off, using ultrasounds, painting them so they become much more visible. In the latter case it means good bye those nice white looking superblades. Red would provide contrast for blue sky, grey sky and green ground. Red could look cool.

>>85975 Useful graphic. There seems to be an ideal first sweet spot between 650 and 950 feet, about 200 to 290 meters, 900-950 ft being the lowest impact zone before going back up very high, I presume because of migrating birds. Anything beyond gets way too high at around 3500 ft, ~1 km. The floating fans aren't small either, several stories high. The front diameter could be anywhere around 30 to 40 meters although smaller apertures could be considered too. >placed on a pivot That makes electric connectivity a tad more complex to manage. Besides I think the cables would twist before they'd force the connector at the base to pivot. A second cable for the tail would definitely seem to be the simplest solution to always keep the floating fan oriented the same way, although having the secondary tail cable be on a rolling springed system at the ground would provide some angular amplitude to the floating fan so it could pivot around the ground anchor tied to front section, right beneath the entrance. There is another issue in that the birds would be very tempted to land on the upper surface of the power-tampons. Between the acidic feces and their claws, they could quickly damage the tissue. >>85978 Rooftop means a more local source of energy, alt-grid, bringing more freedom to people. But if you depend on the larger power grid, your appliances can be shut down by the press of a button located in a far away located building. From what we can observe for now, current governments do not want people to be free as they are corrupt and highly distrustful of the populations. The IoT and increasing level of biometric use is their way to build a prison by using our very bodies and houses as material entrapment. >>85979 It would also make blood invisible, sparing us the need to wash the blades.

>>85986 > Rooftop means a more local source of energy, alt-grid, bringing more freedom to people. But if you depend on the larger power grid, your appliances can be shut down by the press of a button located in a far away located building. From what we can observe for now, current governments do not want people to be free as they are corrupt and highly distrustful of the populations. The IoT and increasing level of biometric use is their way to build a prison by using our very bodies and houses as material entrapment. This reminds me of that Tom Scott video where he explains how power lines can be used to track your location by the noise they make. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY Your power consumption fluctuations can also reveal information about you. I'm not sure to what degree though like can it reveal through AI what a computer you're using is doing or only that you are using something that appears to be a computer? I assume using a UPS would counter this at least partially though maybe? However in some cases you can pick up a monitor feed through electrical wiring. Sorry soykaf video i couldnt find a better example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RXV840VqLY

>>85668 >Look more like an industrial center. Metallurgy maybe. the white bright letters meaning ''hotel'' ))))

>>85986 >That makes electric connectivity a tad more complex to manage. Besides I think the cables would twist before they'd force the connector at the base to pivot. A second cable for the tail would definitely seem to be the simplest solut.... I think you're thinking too hard about this for pure spitballing, all these problems are solvable the question is just can you do it all while making money and IDK. >Rooftop means a more local source of energy, alt-grid, bringing more freedom to people. it also means poor reliability if you dont have a real battery bank and limited power draw. Its nice to have as much independance as possible but there are real tradeoffs here >blood invisible the problem isnt just the blood its the blood, viscera, and feathers all stuck together. The solution is more regular light rains produced by cloud seeding >>86059 and what about dzerzinsky what does that mean

>>86060 >and what about dzerzinsky what does that mean name of city proximity to Moskou, very urban and industrial place, cramped, logical to regroup many activitis and population living next there because it is practical but is bleak,, the picture sees the Zarechye hotel just dont leave there

It's curious that this thread would even go as far as having a second iteration. It looks like what I had planned to write some time ago will be worthy of posting after all. https://newrepublic.com/article/123217/new-utopians >Being a utopian science fiction writer can be lonely. Robinson calls his set, along with Bisson, whose work combines dark humor and environmentalism, and Ursula K. Le Guin, an icon of feminist and environmental utopias, “a study group more than a school.” Yet there is evidence that Robinson’s style of utopian science fiction might be finding resonance with other writers who have grown tired of the end of the world. Pretty much proves that as a leftist movement it failed to consider even once the social alternatives found in the many varying branches of right-wing politics that were not coopted by obsessive profit-making scammers and the blind adoration of success by gigantic American companies. Now go tell these morons that the once great and robust American power grid has been impoverished on purpose. I bet none of these people would ever once quit the comfort of their modern rooms. Solarpunk allows them to come out clean while retaining the capacity to imagine fostering that sweet comfort they are used to. Picrel: an oil rig with thees. Yes, that's the plan. Requiring the entire heavy industrial infrastructure needed to build an oil rig, but then putting trees on it. As if the green acted like some kind of magic that made everything better and automatically solved all problems tied to an industrial activity that's obviously necessary to build such a rig. An industry that would be polluting and which would build more of these rigs because nobody would waste money coming up with such an industry for only one project. I guess trees will be found around the factories too and the evil carbon will just go away. Literally "Muh Trees: The Superstition."

>>86277 >UN Flag >strange blur/injected photograph/reprojected textures >wuppertally hanging trains this has to be one of the most distinctive solar punk images I have ever seen. A mix of normal artsy digital painting with architectural visualization style with schizo photo shop. Impressive, what the german mind can achieve. Imagine this guy leading tanks. >solar panels that conveniently provide to be fair if you draw modern berlin you can't really see the french power plants and the coal mines and the everything that powers it too. I bet you see a few solar panels though, whether they see the sun is another question. I will be generous and assume that the artist would acknowledge that there are massive wind power plants in the north sea, or something, which simply can't be seen here. >plants destroy foundations, moss makes everythign wet and slippery and invites rot, leaves require heavy maintainance to clear the drains and keep streets clean, etc etc while these are problems and not to be understated they are not entierly unsolveable and every major city has solved them to some degree. Maybe you don't want vines climbing up the walls of every tower, but a sensible amount of trees are proper and manageable and in my experience of having visited cities without them very useful in making a city into a nice place. Berlin as it exists is not without trees and greenery, this is simply taking it several steps farther

https://failedarchitecture.com/failover-architectures-the-infrastructural-excess-of-the-data-centre-industry/ So where do we go? What is the solarpunk stance on the encroachment of our social and intimate lives by the technological giants? Are the rebels standing for a lesser and more local use of energy and technology, for a reclaiming of our own privacy? What is the point of pretending being on the side of social justice if you do not object to being turned into a forever accessible ledger who should have nothing to fear if there is nothing to hide?

>>86281 Having trees is one thing and room could even be made to accommodate for more trees, but the representation of cityscapes invaded by overgrown greenery is patently absurd, completely evades the topic of watering when we keep hearing about droughts with what our current levels of forestation and our rather barren cities, and I don't see what is so solar about them to be honest. Where is this genre going really?

>>86283 Removing people would suffice to turn europe into one big forest though its debatable how well that would go for spain&portugal. I think murrica & saudi ariabia are the only 2 places known for people living in a desert zone watering greenery to look cool to neighbors.

If you want to know how dystopic are those solarpunk ideals when you put them in practice, I have a good news. Some idiot with a lot of money decided to build a solarpunk city. https://www.neom.com/ It is far worse than what you are expecting. Entire billions and tens of human lives were lost.

>>85854 >A complete pipe dream that never fails to disappoint, one that doesn't deliver at all. After decades of work on it nothing good came out of the billions wasted into this idea. It's laughable. The same can be said of photovoltaic. >>85882 I repeat: if the goal is to slow or stop climate change, why are we closing nuclear plants? Why aren't we investing in the new generation of reactors? >>85927 Second pic is the only good way to do solarpunk: in a remote, isolated, offgrid by necessity location. And with breathtaking landscapes.

I've never seriously considered solarpunk before, as it always seemed like another bygone derivative like dieselpunk, biopunk, et cetera. I myself think that arcologies should be considered, if only because of how their shared resources and tightly controlled environs can be attractive to investors, policy and commercial enterprise (who would have the resources and influence to complete such enormous projects.) Decentralisation, which is the antithesis of megastructures intended to house teeming millions of people in one place, seems to be the order of the day as far as solarpunk is concerned. If prototypes such as Neom were failures, could there be any pragmatic reasons for making smaller, more realistic environments that replicate the technology discussed herein? I'm also interested in space exploration, namely the founding of O'Neill cylinders as well as Taurus Type 2 space colonies. I think communities that would consider solarpunk guidelines can be used as prototypes for systems intended for life support and amenities for those living under artificial gravity and scarcity in outer space. Thinking about it more, the solarpunk ethos can be particularly valuable to those who are living in truly remote and disparately linked places with much in the way of sunlight. I also think they could be a natural answer to communities hosting so-called tiny homes as well as enclaves like Slab City.

>>86289 >I think communities that would consider solarpunk guidelines can be used as prototypes for systems intended for life support and amenities for those living under artificial gravity and scarcity in outer space. the trouble is that in all cases orbital spacecraft are so very different from any natural environment you find on earth that for such a project to bear any semblance of similarity one must construct a special circumstance wherein for it to be so. Biosphere two was such a project, but any city on earth under the open sky is bound to not need to furnish its own air, nor to recycle its own water with the same covetousness that any spacecraft shall. To suppose that projects in city design is akin to developing a space station is like supposing that building a better yo yo will move you closer to building a supersonic jet engine. Maybe. A little. But there are better uses of your effort if the jet is your plan.

>>86287 They're still doing some promotion in sports for Neom, but last I heard, their great City-01 had its big ass long wall will have to be massively reduced in length. With the scarcity of rare earth ores I'm at a loss to understand how monopolizing even more of these precious resources will prove useful. Then will come a day if that city gets built, ages after the last human added anything material to its walls, when outer barbarians will fall upon it to scavenge all possible good parts.

>>86288 >The same can be said of photovoltaic. At least photovoltaic technology does work and does produce energy. The real issue of solar panels is their reliance on precious materials and the absolute absence of any recycling that would send the prices up into the stratosphere if they were included into the material costs. Which pretty much means that photovoltaics are not good from an economical standpoint but are only relevant insofar as when a group of people want to enjoy some kind of independence from the power grid, even if it's all theoretical because depending on the setup, even power outages on the grid seem to retain a disastrous ability to affect a home's local grid tied to photovoltaics. Besides, who would produce these panels anyway, with what resources? Once again the claim of a certain independence from some evil and all encompassing system is bollocks, as any advanced technology (and photovoltaic solar panels definitely are) is totally tributary of heavy weight industries. So you simply cannot go punk with any of this.

>>86288 >Second pic is the only good way to do solarpunk: in a remote, isolated, offgrid by necessity location. And with breathtaking landscapes. Where do you buy the advanced materials and to whom? And why would you need electric power if you're not also buying appliances and advanced systems built by the organized and united society? And when will you fight for equality, social justice and diversity if you isolate yourself from society?

>>86298 >because it might be sacked like Troy, I'll never build rome t. not romulus I think doing amazing constructive things is good. Not sure they're going to pull it off and all and do it well but the mere fact that at some point some barbarians might rip it up shouldnt be a reason to vegetate

>>86369 >'''something''' >something I remembered too late that this particular chan uses the classical forum BBS tags. :-/

What I don't understand is what solarpunk is meant to achieve. If its to build worlds modeled on comfy anime, then obviously nuclear has no place in the picture. As far as I can tell, its just another mass market aesthetic.

>>86928 It's nothing less than cajoling green Marxism with fluffy clouds wherein you don't ask where the necessary advanced technology comes from nor who controls it, as long as it's not cAPiTaLiSTs. Under the call of providing an alternative to cyberbonk, soykafpunk ditches the rather valid critic of the modern world that was found in cyberbonk. It also comes off as horribly short sighted, simplistic and naive, like a kids tale, as it completely sidetracks the question of how could the world of today with all its ills magically turn into that new global Eden but with solar panels. It feels superficial and fake, surfing on the intrinsic value of innocent pictures that are perfectly in tune with the kind of neo-ecological religion peddled by governments that latte-normal people slurp with glee while mesmerized by the latest canticles delivered to them on their dumbphones, which they shall receive in blind faith. You could even say it's patronizing.

>>86973 Simplistic? Shortsighted? Maybe but I don't think the intent is bad at all. The idea of a solarpunk genre seems dumb commercial internet aesthetic trends.

>>86974 >The idea of a solarpunk genre seems dumb commercial internet aesthetic trends. It is. Please read the two threads. It's more than pretty pictures. It's DEI new communism with layers of moss and big ass windmills. The same "we've never seen its true form but this time it will work" crap, now pushed into the elusive future and lost behind rows of green-herring trees. However, a utopian futuristic ecosystem that is not retarded is exactly what a true hardcore right wing ecology driven government would and could achieve, minus all the BS about lobbies and all the hypocrisy and lies we've been domesticated to ingest without respite. Solarpunk should belong to the far-right. Only competent people in control of their economy, not slaves to debt, not obsessed with forced inclusion and H-1Bs and with a long experience of grandiose projects could ever achieve this odd blend of science fiction and respect for nature, and it would never look like the immature stuff soykafpunk pretends to be anyway. It's also heavily unclear what is being expected from the urban populations. Cities are densely populated. Japan for example is a cramped and overcrowded island. To have more greenery in cities you need to trade space, make room for the plants by removing humans. But the urban setup in Japan precludes that. Many first world countries have cities that are equally compact but they are surrounded by lots of space so it could be possible to reduce the population density by spreading it. This cannot happen if cities are expended by building cheap housing while repurposing streets to strictly pedestrian lanes and spamming them with nimble trees while following the guidelines of the fifteen minutes city.

>>86976 and it shall not be achieved under california liberal style environmental 'stewardship' that cannot comprehend basic forestry management and disaster preparation>>86976 >>86976

>>86984 >let's put inflammable trees everywhere >good idea >??? >OMG NO STOP WE HAV–ACK California is so sickly retardoo now that even Big One sounds preferable.

>DEI >right wing ecology >forest fires are caused by liberals planting trees This thread is cancer and you should all kill yourselves.

>>86990 its obviously not about planting trees but it sounds like they screwed up in not clearing brush and thining the forests and that they were doing so was known years ago. This and letting reservoirs get pretty low for some environmental reason or other leading to not having any water pressure, and probably other issues. CA is supposed to have forests but if you want to keep fires under control you have to work them right. All the southwest gets fires, its not a new thing. We know how to do this right, and CA dropped the ball here.

>>86990 Lead by example, sensei.

>>86984 Official news now report fire department budget got cut and water reserve was reduced for eco concern. Going more fringe private people noticed city has a building plan for 2028 and insurance cut contracts beforehand. So the belief is now staged forceful eviction by burning it all down

>>87032 They already had severe fires a few years ago. It's a very wealthy state with more or less important people there so what are the chances that careful and sensible representatives wouldn't: - increase water reserves - remove bad plant life with controlled fires - create empty lanes with no trees just to cut the spread These fires have been so intense that something like fourteen thousand firefighters were mobilized on this! It's insane. And how convenient that those fires happened exactly when the weather forecast knew that strong winds were coming! Not that I should cry for all those rich moralizing dickheads in Hollywood but that whole "oops it's that climate again" shtick is getting very old and is so contrived. It's like those bizarre many dozen of Eastern Canadian fires that suddenly started at the same time, over hundreds of kilometers, for no good reason at all with no storm to explain anything two years ago. Like what the hell? Looks like well planned arson. Yes, the insurances said that the area was too costly to cover so they cut the contract, as you said. A wee bit convenient. Convenient like signing an insurance deal for a building or two, a deal that contains a very juicy anti-terrorist clause, all a short period before said insured buildings get destroyed by terrorists. Damn. Some people are lucky, some others are not. Is there more information about that 2028 city plan?

>>87032 It's all funny because as soon as I saw this on TV I said to my friend that there's someone who's going to get filthy rich by buying all these lands at a cent. I hate being cynical because it's the new normal nowadays, and I hate being right.

I find it very strange how the California fires are being blamed on liberal forestry management. I did not know there existed a liberal school of forestry and fire control and as far as I can tell there does not exist one. Both political parties in the USA are notorious for environmental deregulation, housing deregulation, and under funding of basic community services, all of which contribute to large destructive fires. It seems Americans and Americanized people are so mind poisoned by the futility of the media circus that passes itself off as politics, that even when their beloved Sodom is burning down they can't help turn it into a retarded culture wars debate. Suddenly, every two bit NEET and burger flipper on the internet has become an expert in forestry, gecko nests, and fire fighting and can tell you how tranny fire brigades are responsible or bird loving environmentalists. These same people cannot point out where the fires are on the city map. I hope your country sinks while you sit around arguing. Then you won't be such a burden on the rest of the world.

>>87059 The lack of self awareness is hilarious. Your political ideology is in first place just an us import. You reaction a copypaste of typical american twitter user.

>>87057 >and how convenient that I think thats a bit suspicious but fires do start, its a thing that happens. Most of the time they're not big news. If 50 fires start in an area in a year you're going to hear mostly about the ones that happened when it was dry and very windy because the others get handled easily. Where I live (not California) we get a good number of fires and you see smoke clouds up from them often enough when the conditions are right, sometimes they get put out, sometimes they're let to burn to clear brush out. Once in a while they turn into a big deal, but not like these. The number of them that started and some up wind is suspicious and it sounds like several purported arsonists have been arrested. Knowing california they'll probably get released within the month guilty or not.

>>87057 >Is there more information about that 2028 city plan? City posted 2018 plan on their website to replace single family houses with apartment blocks til 2028 because that's efficient eco-friendly and therefore the future. They also envisioned you to stop driving since everything is nearby once they push people together. Fresh new find today: last week the state itself released a massive electric railway plan to connect the entire state til 2050.

>>87059 >>87057 Lucky Larry insured all of his buildings against terrorist attacks. Forest fires start all the time. They usually stop on their own or with minimal input. Hobos on meth is also a factor. I agree on the rest. >>87032 Everybody involved in risk prevention in LA knew it was a matter of time before something like this happened, look at the Joe Rogan thing. Of course insurance companies, whose job is to quantify risks, knew it was insane to insure that. >>87059 You made a strawmen in your head and destroyed the strawmen with facts and logic. L.A. fire dept had several budget cuts, made its priority to be as diverse as possible instead of as effective as possible, there was 0 forest fire prevention and the water tank made to feed the hydrants was empty while it was forest fire season. It's called criminal mismanagement. >>87065 Usually, rich people have bright plans for poor people, not for other rich people.

>>87157 I refuse to believe anyone is legitimately this stupid and therefore come to the conclusion that it is in fact you who are the glowie psyoper! no one except your rare intellectual or moral inferior is claiming that fires only start under liberals any more than anyone is claiming that airplanes only crash into buildings whos owners are currently out getting their hair done despite usually being in their office at that time. What is being pointed out is that -the government of LA and CA are basically democrats and liberals all the way down, -fires do happen in places like CA fairly often everyone knows this -CA was badly unprepared for this batch of fires what you're saying amounts to watching an obviously drunk guy stumble into his car taking a last generous swig as he does so before racing off at highspeed into a brick wall, and pointing out that plenty of sober people get in crashes there's no reason to suppose the man had any booze in his system letalone that that was a factor in the crash.

>>86976 It is truly wild, amigos, that somebody got even fascists to be into Solarpunk. I want to contextualize what you're saying since I study social sciences professionally and these neo-trends and "New Marxism" are part of that: you're talking about the "library economy" in Solarpunk. Meaning, we share crops, we share spaces where we collect the harvest, we share storing spaces for clothes - everything is a "library". Now, I do believe in the "naturalistic" conservative argument because its true - the will to power as the will to own, yada yada. But say lets scale this down to an online "clothing library" where we could store at least designs of clothes if not clothes themselves first, for example. Let us then suggest that what this solves is the reusage crisis which upholds sustainability. So we store tools in the same room - we don't need to collect natural resources to "create" anymore tools. Now it's better, because nobody is offended and everyone realizes how sustainable it is. That can be extrapolated onto most, if not all, logistically non-interchangeable community "essentials". Hopefully, that made sense.

>>87162 >hopefully that made sense I wish it did. Fascism has always been about respecting Nature.

>>87164 >A hot climate home to a dessert but elsewhere full of trees and closely built together homes due to high population density. There is nothing weird about that. I'm sorry but this is incoherent I have no idea what you mean. Heat isnt a major factor here its been cool in the area (its January BTW), what matters is that its dry and windy. Even if you eliminated all human caused fires you'll still have lightning strike fires, and frankly for healthy forest management you want some of them to burn, which means you need to be able to keep them under reasonable control.

>>87166 I probably should have been a bit more clear. By heat of climate I was indirectly referencing low humidity and drought. These occur seasonally in different areas. Many parts of the US wont let you do open burnings during certain times of day and also sometimes tell people not to shoot off fireworks and other regulations because high fire hazards during certain environmental conditions.

>>87155 Okay, but in a state full of zombie looking hobos who are on meth and fentanyl and have to live where they can like in the forest near the town and stay warm and cook the way they can, it should not be a surprise that fires start spreading around. The real issue is why they couldn't stop a fire while it was small. Now, I don't want to engage in conspiracy theories but the local and national politicians did everything they legally could to make the fire department less effective, to make it more likely that a fire will spread out of control and they had plans to build a smart city. And the insurances companies got out of it just in time. >>87163 German fascism, yes, because it come from the volkish movement that rejected the industrial revolution and wanted to return to cultivating the land and to have the subcultures of Germany to not mix. Italian and English fascism, not so much. In fact, the German one forgot all of this and went full industrial. The dream stay, you might say.

>>87191 make artificial wombs affordable. take women out of the equation. make europe pagan again.

>>86928 >derivative of >comfy anime >? But none of it is realistic yet the supporters of solarpunk, if there are any, like to think it's a counter to the gloom and doom of cyberpunk and provides a positive vision of a hopeful future, but with caveats. If you want to do that then you have to be realistic, otherwise you could just go back to the glamorous science fiction of the 50s and the 60s. Solarpunk tries to be very grounded in real world tech but it's weird because it also puts the time of the change in a distant future and often implies that it's in a post-war world. It doesn't seem to know what it wants exactly but will nevertheless settle on a narrow selection of green and grounded technologies to litter its techno-futuristic landscape. I think the major issue with solarpunkists is that they never got pushed far enough to the point of having to actually sit for a moment and properly explain whatever they have in mind. Meanwhile you have this other OP glitterboy who data-mines stuff for his two cents organization because they truly don't have anything to say about their supposed rich and hopeful genre, so it really feels superficial and indeed solely based on cute aesthetics while appropriating former works without even caring much about the compatibility of the themes and content of said works and whatever formless idea solarpunk tries to be. Solarpunkists really owe us a serious explanation if they want to be taken seriously instead of being seen as grifting weebs starved for any legitimate work which they claim represents true Solarpunk.

>>87162 >soykaf about a shared wardrobe and something about dem tools >noon-inderchaeguble coomunistisf Could you just tone down your autism for one minute and try to make some fuarrrking sense please?

>>87192 >universal fleshlight program No.

>>87196 There is a lot of different ancient farming techniques that are better than some modern mass scale agriculture. Since large scale agriculture focuses on efficiency of harvesting instead of ecological and social effects. Likewise technology in energy built around community would fare better than nuclear. Literally no one wants to live near a nuclear plant no matter how much they claim to support it. Diseases will always exist but you dont have to deal with walls of information behind corporation secrets and copyrights on medicine research. Also focus would be placed on threat level rather than just focusing on what may generate the most profits. The climate is going ti be fuarrrked even if we go entirely green, eventually but it slows things down giving proper time to adjust to changes not just for humans but wildlife. Likewise innovation of materials can better localize production of some things produced. This is all pretty realistic consider there is no expectation of absolute perfection just doing things more pragmatically

>>87202 no permit? illegal criminal! trivial for gov to mess with you regardless what you do >>87204 resource conflicts apply to every energy source

>>87209 Resource conflict is only part of it. I'm talking about the sheer cost of nuclear plants in both finances and resources. It's not even realistically viable as a sole source of grid energy. I explained this previously >>85882

>>87210 >the US government supports nuclear power if thats the case then why has there been like one non naval nuclear plant built in this country since the seventies. Maybe this attitude is changing but it is slowly, trepedatiously, and recently. >rarity of r.e. metals US has been talking about acquiring Greenland with r.e. metal mining as one of the advantages, >spoiling metals for future generations while the dangers of these things should be considered they're usually regarded as far more dangerous than they need to be. You can literally pick up chunks of uranium ore in the right places, its just another rock. World is full of radiation sources and always has been. >>87202 >it disempowers the community and forces them to rely on technocrats No the community is already disempowered and made to rely on outside contribution in these ways, switching to nuclear maintains the status quo while achieving many much sought after goals of the environmentalist movement. Would you be satisfied if instead of large centrally run nuke plants we had every large city running its own number of plants on the scale of perhaps a submarine ?

>>87214 >Would you be satisfied if instead of large centrally run nuke plants we had every large city running its own number of plants on the scale of perhaps a submarine ? That's more or less what ex-Hyperion Gen4 Energy Inc. was looking into. Oracle relies on these too for one of their datacenters. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nuclear-trio-powered-data-center-now-being-developed-by-Oracle.886865.0.html Here's a list of small scale nuclear reactors designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs

On the topic of hydrogen I wonder about the options of other synthetic fuels, synthesized oil or whatever. You gain a couple problems like less clean combustion, but you can simplify storage and transfer, I wonder which would work out better costwise.

>>87165 Yeah so that would be things like essential tools and everything that doesn’t require complete privatisation. People on these inc3l chans are very strange, I literally barely go here anymore. Just simply attacking the messenger, nothing new for these communities. What I said was purely descriptive and informative, just google that.

>>87475 > create artificial star-like conditions to harness vast amounts of power, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be going anywhere despite decades of research (see >>85854 I want to point how little is invested in fusion. Iter, for instance was only 20 billions. Its predecessor, JET was half of one. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were 9 trilliards. The Biden administration spent 10 trilliards every quarter. DOGE has already saved over 30 bilions. Germany alone spend 36 billions per year in renewable. The NHS cost 226 billions per year. 11 Iters. Per year. If we (the west) spend one % of what we waste in renewables that don't keep promizes in fusion, it would not take decades. >But tell me, aren't you describing positive eugenics Yeah, he is describing eugenism, but even though he like the idea, he has been told to not like the word. Why do anyone have a problem with eugenism anyway. We have to choose a destiny for mankind and without genetic engineering nothing good will ever happen. You are aware that automats still need people to work, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCgnWqoP4MM

>>87475 Well, I didn't say it would cease being stupid. You might even want to go with something like eco futurism instead if you want to get away from the strict dependency on photovoltaics and those sky tampons that those guys really seem to be into. How are those even supposed to stay up in the air? Perhaps some technology we unlock about the same time we can build a dyson sphere already. And by then it will be all about solar. But as it looks right now, it won't. Not even with solar friggn highways. >the topic itself calls for much deeper reflections There is little to no disagreement so far between you and me. And yes, I don't see an issue with eugenics per se. What worked for all the other species we imposed selective breeding on will also work for us. Richard Dawkins agrees. The big question is however, who is it who's going to impose it on us and there I hope you immediately see the issue. It would most likely be the same losers working at public schools who seem to like to instill life long traumas and insecurities on anyone who dares to find the state mandatory programming as boring. So I probably should've clarified that I was talking about institutionalized eugenics. Beyond that you might see it as merely some form of social darwinism or even natural selection if the outcomes are not directly enforces by fellow humans. But if that still sounds shocking then hey, at least what I proposed is much nicer than what our current crop of supposed betters have in mind for the broader population. Who seem to either want to kill em outright with things like MAID and all the other evil that's going on right now or want to breed some sort of slave caste of mullatos, smart enough to operate the machines but dumb enough to not ask too many questions and be too impulse driven to willingly risk losing their little comforts that are allotted to them. And frankly I don't know which of these is worse. One is obvious while the other will doom us to a decadent clique of despots who will unlikely innovate and a destroyed gene pool which will at best only be able to make incremental improvements to what already is, forever stuck in their local maximum until humanity simply fizzles out like a terminally wounded animal laying down to die in peace. In comparison, simply asking those who can't or won't contribute, have low impulse control and otherwise can not bestow any noteworthy qualities on their offspring while letting them enjoy the bread and circus really doesn't sound too bad in comparison. I'm at heart an individualist after all and don't want them to suffer needlessly. But also I'm aware of material reality and that our current mode of operation likely isn't sustainable. And that it all is a group effort after all. The most important thing however is to never lose our humanity or the qualities that are attributed to that term. The ideal that is the best of our attributes. Since otherwise what's even the point if we just turn into psychopathic automatons, ravaging the stars like a locust? So I will ask you directly. What is your opinion on the narcissist question? How can we possibly survive the great filter while having only the self serving and back stabbing at the top? Not saying the poor are some sort of noble savage either but if we can't solve this, should we even make it at all?

>>87524 >How are those even supposed to stay up in the air? They're hollow zeppelins. But considering the weight of the generator, the rotor and then the three or four blades, the gas enveloppes arranged in a circular array would need to be so huge that you wouldn't see the blades. Eventually the nacelle could be held in the middle with many tense cables. With a nacelle that can weigh up to 300 tons. Large modern blades may weigh at least 15 tons but often times twice or thrice more, so you'd be adding at the very least 45 more tons, plus the anchoring cables. The Graf Zeppelin could safely lift a maximum of 87 tons and aerodynamics aside, it was quite efficient already. So you would need something like four or five such zeppelins just to lift one modern 1.5 MW nacelle and its three blades. You would somehow halve each zeppelin into two separate opposite sections, thus obtaining a pair. From the front view, one section below, one above, the nacelle in the middle. Vertical axis. We'd have four such pairs along four diffent axises x and + combined, each time a pair rotated 45°.

Wind turbines: the tech that is totally clean, sustainable, free and purveyor of peace https://ctmirror.org/2023/10/07/offshore-wind-turbines-rare-earth-metals/ >> Offshore wind turbines need rare earth metals. Will there be enough to go around? >>China dominates production of the crucial metals, and wind companies are scouring the globe for more sources. >>Permanent magnet generators have one big drawback, though: They need a lot of rare earths. A large direct drive offshore wind turbine equipped with one of these generators can contain upwards of 5 tons of magnets, according to Alla Kolesnikova, the data and analytics lead for the critical minerals research firm Adamas Intelligence. While rare earths only represent about 30 percent of the weight of these magnets, that can still add up to hundreds of pounds of the rare earth metal neodymium — and often, smaller amounts of the heavy rare earths dysprosium and terbium — per megawatt of electricity produced. >>Those quantities multiply quickly when you consider the number of offshore wind turbines needed to help nations reach their climate targets. >>Take the U.S., where the Biden administration has set a goal of installing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind, enough to power about 10 million homes, by 2030 to help the nation reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Recent modeling work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that in a scenario where the U.S. reaches that 2050 goal, the wind industry’s neodymium demand would consume over 90 percent of the neodymium produced domestically in 2020. And wind is just one application — neodymium is also required for the magnets used in electric car motors, consumer electronics, and defense technologies. By 2050, “there’s going to be greater demand for everything,” Derby told Grist. >>With demand rising not just in the U.S. but globally, Adamas Intelligence recently forecasted the world could face a shortfall of 90,000 metric tons per year of neodymium-praseodymium oxide, the rare earth alloy used to make magnets, by 2040. >>Limited supplies of rare earths are one concern for the wind industry. Another is the reality that nearly all rare earth processing and magnet-making takes place in China today. Daan de Jonge, a rare earth analyst at the research firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, said that rare earth-reliant industries are increasingly concerned about how “tensions between the U.S. and China” could impact future supplies. A disruption of critical mineral supplies would not be unprecedented: Earlier this summer, after U.S. and European semiconductor manufacturers restricted the sale of advanced chips to China to slow the advancement of the nation’s military technology, China retaliated by setting export restrictions on gallium and germanium, two metals used in semiconductor manufacturing. >>Many offshore wind turbines use a direct drive design, but some do include a gearbox, which means a smaller permanent magnet generator can be used to produce the same level of power. For Vestas, a leading offshore wind turbine manufacturer, gearboxes result in five to 10 times less rare earths used per megawatt of power produced, spokesperson Claes Cunliffe told Grist in an email. In recent turbine models, Cunliffe said, the company is also phasing out the use of the heavy rare earths dysprosium and terbium. China controls nearly 100 percent of the processing of heavy rare earths, which are often mined in dismal conditions. Siemens Gamesa also plans to phase out the use of heavy rare earths, although it hasn’t set a target date. >>GE, meanwhile, is doing early-stage research on superconducting generators that eliminate the use of rare earths entirely. Derby of the DOE, which is funding this research, says that the company is in the process of designing and building a 17-megawatt superconducting generator that should be ready for field-testing within the next few years. >>The DOE also recently launched a wind turbine recycling competition that will award cash prizes to groups with innovative new ideas for how to recycle both wind turbine blades and rare earth magnets. Commercial-scale recycling options don’t yet exist for wind turbine magnets. But eventually, recycling could meet a significant fraction of the industry’s demand, offering a more sustainable alternative to mining. Innovating by using gearboxes? Funny since it was the use of rare earth materials that allowed for a reduction of size of the mounted systems. As for the pollution? https://rareearthexchanges.com/rare-earths-in-wind-turbines/ >>Environmental Concerns >> Habitat destruction: Open-pit mining can lead to deforestation and ecosystem disruption. >> Water pollution: The extraction and processing of rare earths often involve toxic chemicals that can contaminate water sources. >> Radioactive waste: Many rare earth deposits contain radioactive elements like thorium and uranium, which require careful management. >> Energy-intensive processing: The separation and purification of rare earths consume significant amounts of energy, often from fossil fuel sources.

>>87562 There is one plus side to coastal turbines. Enough of them and they can slow hurricane / typhoon winds. This isnt only kind of wind generator though there are multiple ones that do not rely on exposed turbines some lack moving parts entirely. Some were previously mentioned in the thread here is another

>>87577 Ive seen the no moving parts design, mentioned coastal turbine no wind issue cause that's what we currently deal with. And in terms of strong winds they have operational limits, they cant tank dangerous winds. The electric grid also struggles absorbing sudden input spike from strong winds but i guess you can say it works since they managed to keep it running while complaining about it. Though it should still be a concern when you plan to increase % contribution.

>>87577 Crazy me just thinking out loud but if they can slow down hurricanes (I doubt it, the blades would likely break before that, they would simply shut them down until the winds drop), could they create winds and increase air flows and perhaps even slightly boos hurricanes, assuming the hardware would have enough of a margin of operation to allow for it? Could they therefore push more air saturated with water inland for example? Or increase winds when "wild" fires happen?

>>87668 You have a gap in knowledge on how the economy works at the most fundamental level as well as resource management. Fossil fuels increasingly become scarce and biofuels can take energy and land usage to produce. Even Saudi Arabia is investing in solar because they know the oil will run out and also so they can just sell the fossil fuels instead of using a good portion of it.

>>87695 solar doesn't work at night

>>87697 Batteries do... You ok lainon?

>>87695 >Even Saudi Arabia is investing in solar Saudi Arabia is a literal desert with 12 hours of continuous sunlight. Your country isn't. >Fossil fuels increasingly become scarce They've been saying that since the 60s and it still hasn't happened. Sometimes people, especially governments and corporations, lie for personal gain. I don't know if you've worked that out yet. >>87702 >Batteries do... You ok lainon? Your assumption that solar panels will not only provide enough energy to power everything during the day but will produce enough surplus energy to charge batteries to run everything at night as well is hilariously deluded. He is the one who should be asking if you are ok.

>>87707 >They've been saying that since the 60s and it still hasn't happened. Sometimes people, especially governments and corporations, lie for personal gain. I don't know if you've worked that out yet. Somehow, this isn't the first time I've seen someone smugly argue that there's effectively infinite oil and gas in the Earth, pointing at the fact we haven't run out yet. I'm not even sure if you realize that's the implication of what you're saying. I guess it's nice to get that occasional reminder that we're all the descendants of retarded apes. There's a lot of fossil fuel in the crust. We also use a lot - not enough for us to already be on the brink of running out, but enough to ensure that time will come one day. For obvious reasons, we should prepare for that. There's a lot of good arguments against specific ideas and solutions within renewable and clean energy, but this is very far from being one of them. Consider internalizing your own advice about corpo-political manipulators and personal gain.

>>87723 >Nice strawman. Your hidden implication is that we will run out of oil and gas soon so we need to start planning for it now. That's the thing I am disagreeing with. Well, we pretty much nearly did. We just invented fracking which offset it for few decades into the future. But even then, that we had to invent something like that is crazy. Few decades ago it was a thing that, if you were lucky enough, you could find oil in your backyard. We didn't need to do some advanced procedures to get it. An other way to think about it is that if you reversed technology to the 18th century, but left the earth as it is now, our energy production could just never happen. We wouldn't be able to reach it the resources for it. And even then, that we live like this is crazy in the first place. Once you realize that modern man finds no issue with poisoning the environment, even though after a bit of thinking he can realize that he comes out of that environment, you realize we are deluded. You are made of water, and if that gets poisoned, there is no you. You constantly need to eat to rebuild yourself as your body is falling apart, Once the food is poisoned, there will no longer be you. But modern man is deluded. He sees himself as somehow being outside of the world, even though if the world would disappear, so would he. He seeks to control it yet finds it confusing why he finds himself bound in ever bigger chains. Once man walked outside and saw a forest of plenty full of game, fruits and nuts. Now he walks in streets of concrete working long hours just so that he can buy more things he forgets about the next day, and wonder why he feels unsatisfied. But we can't admit that. Because then we would realize that we have a childish economy which actually had enough goods to let everyone live a comfortable life decades ago, but instead we work long hours to make products that try to end our insecurities (be it make-up for women, or cars for men) just so that in the process we can pollute the world and kill life.

>>87720 The oil peak will happen one day, yes, and 40 years after, it will cost so much that we will only use it to make expensive plastic. That being said, the first oil peak was when my dad was young. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618303207 Before we used oil, we had a coal fueld economy. And coal is finite and we were afraid to run out of coal. And at the very start of the industrial revolution, we used whale oil, and there is only so many whales. One day, we will run out of fossil, that's true. Wind and solar aren't experimental anymore and we can clearly see that they are not as good as advertised. We simply can't run an advanced economy on that. Once fossil fuel is gone, we will either have fusion generators and we can move forward and conquer the stars or we fall back to preindustrial societies with no hope to raise above that. That is, I think the great filter. What we do on the short time we have is the great filter. If there are other civilizations out there, they too have to not fall into hedonism or hunting shadows. Boom-ers are why the sky is silent.

>>87720 Not if the oil regenerates itself, and not if we use biofuels grown from plants in the sea or in the soil, solutions almost entirely destroyed now because muh carbon is killing the carbon based life or some soykaf like that since the Davos bros said so.

The achievement of a solarpunk society requires the end of whatever this is >>87740

>>87742 don't worry comrade, proletariat dictatorship shall destroy the capitalist class!

>>87688 I bought the paper version some years ago lmao

>>87695 If you take economics into account, the real issue is how countries switching to renewable energy cannot compete in the global economy with countries running the cheaper fossil fuels energy. See the case of Germany. Now there was this dank idea of the European Union to label anybody running fossil fuels as ecofascists and keep them down. This way they would have time for the switch and wouldn’t have to fear developing countries (using fossil fuels) from overtaking them. Now that the USA has backed out of this strategy, the EU is a bit fuarrrked and will have to return to fossil fuels again, or at least synthetic fuels. It’s over for solar hippies.

>>87748 >I turned worthless paper into even more worthless paper. Congrats.

>>87749 >If you take economics into account, the real issue is how countries switching to renewable energy cannot compete in the global economy with countries running the cheaper fossil fuels energy. See the case of Germany. But you can with nuclear power because of the energy density advantage that is huge.

>>87752 Then we can leave it at the Atomic Age and put Solar into the trash. It’s really simple.

>>87702 how much sense does building city-powering battery packs make? economics and resource management wise

Why should we generate power/electricity in the first place? Maybe the sun and wood fires with a well insulated adobe/mud home are all we need. Now that's solarpunk!

>>87774 Oh dear lainons, you're going to love it. Prepare for... LOGPUNK.

>>87562 I'd love to see numbers on those. What is the weekly net output once is removed the energy that is consumed to keep the blades spinning?

>>87775 Reject modernity, return in the trees. >>87765 At the global scale, trillions of car batteries. They have to be trashed and replaced every 10 to 15 years. Ecology. >>87749 Don't worry, the EU have a plan. https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eus-new-list-of-energy-projects-includes-32-gas-facilities/ Uncle Vladimir approve. They literally close nuclear power plants and shut down fuel ones to burn gas that they can't get without Russia. >>87739 This is like the tiny house movement. The problem isn't the houses or the idea of accurate heating, no the problem is that it's all a rationalization of the impoverishment of the population. And that impoverishment is 100% manufactured, productivity went up. It is a political choice.

>>87828 >They literally close nuclear power plants and shut down fuel ones to burn gas that they can't get without Russia. No, the EU doesn’t want to buy from Russia, they want to give Uncle Sam all their money. The USA basically is buying Europe currently, with the Trump government I suspect it will only accelerate. Some folks in the EU government seem to realize that they got played by both Vlad and Joe, but they are so deep in some ideology and propaganda trip that they cannot change direction anymore.

>>87859 I believe it's simply economic spies sabotaging from within. Germany's finance minister for example comes straight from blackrock And i didnt know that soykaf for the longest time until i saw it by accident mentioned on a interview. I bet theres way more examples of it. That aside i think they knew eu is gonna suicide already ~4 years back when they added a new tax for leaving the eu. You dont think about creating walls for prisoners unless you expect to run a prison soon.

>>87859 The EU always was an American project if you look who was behind it. It's not meant to make EU independent and strong but only another centralized management piece in the global puzzle, especially in a way that wouldn't threaten the US.

>>87975 >All top politicians in Europe are from the global young leader program and this is not by mistake. We live in occupied countries. That, when they don't directly stem from Blackrock or affiliates. >At a greater scale the UN exist to devolves countries into a globohomo blob easier to control. A mono-culture definitely makes the hyper-centralized global management of this planet much easier I guess. While culture is political and there is a cultural war that has been going on for a long long time and shifting form regularly, we can wonder when should these big corporations enter the picture when we look at solarpunk. For all the leftism that it suffuses outside of the topic strictly limited to ecology, it certainly does not look like it benefits from major funds nor any other category of a substantial support yet despite this ill begotten "genre" espousing the current climate narrative. Perhaps they are waiting for it to take off and like with tech funding, the more promising it becomes the further rounds of funds the entire genre will attract, reaching a point where the larger entertainment industry will seize it. In fact it's the entire climate change narrative that seems to seldom protrude into entertainment as a whole. I would have expected by now a pseudo-Miyazaki series of production, a complete appropriation of the style for their mystical and political agenda.

>>88031 EU passed a directive that makes esg (enviroment, social, governane) reports mandatory. Low score prevents you from loans, mid score makes them more expensive. In other words it doesn't matter what normal people think because the companies are getting forced to obey environment measures regardless of public support.

>>88035 US has these too. look into green banks. lolberts are silly to me because if the government is supposed to function like a business, and businesses are allowed to deny loans, then it's only sensible that the government can deny loans for environmental reasons

>>88040 its not the government that's giving loans. Its the banks that are instructed to limit loan giving by government mandated rules.

>>88045 why is the government even regulating that though ? you don't understand libertarians at all, sir

>>88035 It started 2014 with CSR and that got extended into Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in 2022. Significant change is extended reach from CSR only targeting massive corporations to CSRD anyone trying to make a profit. They promised a less extensive report requirement for small business but the implementation not done which means we dont know how extend of it. Some gremium has to define the report shape this year because the directive demands everyone to write reports starting next year. And yeah, i expect eu to get economically fuarrrked by this. Its a handicap no matter how you look at it. Which means they will be even less competitive than they already are.

>>88055 Thank you for this clarification. I may be missing a few details but by far I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to consider that the people at the helm of the European Union are, at the very least, selfish and clueless idiots, but perhaps more worrying, fully aware anti-Europeans who are collaborating with external groups and whose treason doesn't appear blatant because of the sluggish drip effect and the massive propaganda used to legitimize this meticulous and slow paced damaging of anything European, from culture, environment, industry, legacy, people or economy. From what you say it looks like the states have lost almost all their sovereign powers against the Union's authority. It's like a soft empire but that acts against its own interests. This is rather strange and if they continue that way they'll find themselves ranked at a middle station between first world economies and third world countries. That to me feels rather obvious. Bad decisions that find their origins in faulty models are one thing but they would be quickly corrected because I couldn't imagine that the same people coming up and defending these faulty models would suddenly turn very competent to come up with methods of control to maintain themselves in position of power against the well being of millions and millions of Europeans. In other words, stupid people shouldn't see it coming and shouldn't be able to erect logical and efficient defenses to protect themselves and their political structures from oppositions, it's not coherent. Perhaps more on topic, I must say that the little I've read about Europe regarding her energy policies really leave me baffled, as if every time there were options ranging from good to bad, the worst choices were always made according to constant pattern. But if these people, these leaders say, are that stupid, then the Union would collapse. Meaning that it could only be kept afloat by a higher control that is on the other hand very competent and definitely not working for Europe's best interests.

>>87775 >LOGPUNK Well I just happened to look into fresh EU happenings to keep up with the latest European (d)evolutions since I was clearly trailing behind. Guess what I found. Check this, they're really going full stupid. https://latvia.news-pravda.com/en/world/2025/02/11/7219.html >The EU wants to ban burning with firewood, but has not yet decided >The EU wants to ban burning with firewood, but has not yet decided. >The European Commission has postponed plans to ban wood-burning stoves and heaters from 2027 after resistance from Czech and German lawmakers. >A bill was supposed to be submitted this week, which from 2027 introduces stricter restrictions on emissions of harmful particles from wood-burning boilers and heaters. However, the meeting was postponed due to the "need for additional technical work." >The move followed popular outrage in the Czech Republic and resistance from the European People's Party, the largest political group in Brussels. >"For us, biomass heating systems are an important part of the energy transition, especially in rural areas," said EPP MP Peter Liese. >This story recalls the protracted political struggle over mandatory heat pumps in Germany in 2023, which led the European Commission to abandon similar plans at the EU level. So the reason why this madness goes on is motivated by a struggle against "emissions of harmful particles," which sounds like pseudo science, if for the fact that said particles don't seem to go far up in the atmosphere at all and tend to fall back to the ground very quickly. We're not talking about massive volcanic eruptions here that can propel particles tens of kilometers up in the sky. Anyway, most people either use electricity or gas to heat themselves up, the quantity of people who would rely on wood logs to avoid freezing during cold times would be minimal, say residual even, and only limited to much less populated areas. America, China and Russia are soykafting all over green agreements but Europe has decided to sacrifice herself to compensate for the supposedly bad behavior of the rest of the world? Europe is definitely too demented to be taken seriously.

>>87868 Current German government is mostly lobbyism and no politics, I agree. I don't even bother checking on these political figures anymore. But yeah, I heard about some individuals coming from blackrock too. >>87935 >The EU always was an American project if you look who was behind it. I cannot confirm this, neither deny it. Maybe you can explain it please?

>>88058 If we look at the EU further limiting energy sources and what >>88032 posted, it appears to me that the EU government want to steer where energy goes. It makes sense from a smart cities point of view, where you can generate an outcome by allocating resources to the place you want to develop. Coupled with AI predicition it is a cute utopia of smart cities. Now solarpunk makes little sense in that concept though as it would be a decentralized energy source where companies (and individuals) would be able to circumvent the smart city programming. A single centralized energy source like nuclear would make more sense in this smart city scenario.

>>88058 >America, China and Russia are soykafting all over green agreements but Europe has decided to sacrifice herself to compensate for the supposedly bad behavior of the rest of the world? The intention was a form of eco tyranny where less "green" countries' industry (that would be developing countries, so future competition) would be kept down with the narrative of harming the environment. The whole narrative was built for that application, and the CO2 taxes against countries already painting the picture clearly. Now the USA recognized that it isn't quiet working out and pulled out ahead of time to cut losses. The European Union is still holding on to that strategy while making considerable losses. I think it is just a matter of time when the EU will have to drop this eco narrative. To save face, they'll need an excuse. More intense military conflicts are easy to make and plenty of excuse to industrialize again without holding back. At least that's how I see it. I'm not very optimistic.

>>88092 I hear you, but the EU don't do anything against non eco friendly countries. Worse: as they impose horrible regulations to their own industry, they don't require these regulations for importations, effectively killing entire national industries, including agriculture, for the profit of non eco friendly countries. It's just a mix of brainrot and a purity spiral created so some administrators could climb the ladder faster. >>88086 The Marshal plan was not humanitarian help. They gave money to whoever did as they were told. That's why De Gaulle said no. Now, the origin on the EU can be traced to some trade agrements between France and Germany and those were made against the US, but it have been hickjacked. Now every leader in every country is a former youth global leader member and the weight of the US is everywhere. Look at how many countries that have built the Eurofighter bought the F35. >>88057 Just in case anybody have doubts that this is about the climate, France have a 95% decarbonated energy and still it is forced to do more.

>>88032 If you have doubts about what ESG score measure, look at the top and the bottom. https://theimpactinvestor.com/worst-esg-companies/ It's either companies that refuse to bend the knee and submit to this new form of power, and get the stick, or straight up: >Another of the worst ESG stocks on the market is Xerox. Despite the company’s innovations and the general lack of controversies, it is a poor choice for ESG investment. Because it is not in the spotlight, it has been able to avoid making socially aware decisions. So, you are a good, profitable company with a bright future but you don't hire DEI and you don't have pride: you get the stick. There is Fox News. And it's not because of the climate or treating their employees poorly. Guess why they are here. There is Tencent. Their chat isn't regulated you see, and taht's very dangerous to our democracy.

>>87524 >>87559 >magic wand wind tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21uZjFVPak Funny, does work, but has one of the lowest outputs and is high maintenance. The vibrations wear materials quite fast. >sky tampons Technically they may have been called windmill blimps. It's part of a relatively new field called Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) (aww). https://solarpunkcities.com/energy/wind-energy-innovations-airborne-wind-energy-systems/ >AWE systems use kites, balloons, or drones to reach altitudes where winds are two to three times stronger and more consistent than those available to conventional wind turbines. By accessing these high-altitude winds in a range from 500 m (1600 ft) to 1500 m (5000 ft), AWE systems can potentially generate more power with a smaller ground footprint. Wind power is proportionate to cubed wind velocity, so doubled wind velocity yields 8 times the power, and tripled velocity 27 times the power! >There are two primary modes of operation in AWE systems: Ground-Generating (Ground-Gen) and Fly-Generating (Fly-Gen). In Ground-Gen mode, a kite’s aerodynamic lift is utilized to pull a load on the ground, e.g. winding a tether around a drum to drive an electric generator. In Fly-Gen mode, turbines are attached to the kite, generating electricity onboard in flight mode and transmitting it to the ground via a conducting tether. Companies like Kitepower, EnerKite, Kitemill, SkySails Power, and TwingTec operate primarily in Ground-Gen mode, while others like Makani and Windlift have explored Fly-Gen mode technologies. What is stupid here is the idea that anyone waited for that thing called solarpunk to invest in these technologies. Here's a fact: the genre could have never existed or could stop existing tomorrow, that wouldn't stop resarch nor investments. I actually find them to be an interesting idea. Probably ridiculous in itself but worth a try for the technical challenge alone. I'd also put a screen and a neon. Make sure the birds cannot destroy it. Perhaps find something that does repel them, if the shape alone doesn't scare them. There could be a speaker that casts sounds that makes birds want to avoid the device? It's been in dev for nearly a decade apparently. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/will-they-fly-wind-power-alternatives-buffeted-technical-squalls-n211571 >Altaeros Energies, a 10-person enterprise out of Boston, is a case in point. Started by MIT grads, the company is already four years into developing its BAT (Buoyant Airborne Turbine) — a 40-foot diameter, helium-filled blimp wrapped around a wind turbine — and weighing in at around a ton. >The goal: Float BATs some 2,000 feet up, in 30- to 45-mph winds, in order to generate power sent down a cable that tethers each to the ground. >Altaeros did get a $740,000 grant from the Alaska Energy Authority, which is always looking for ways around the expensive and dirty use of diesel generators in remote parts of the state. >By the end of next year, Glass says, a BAT should be flying outside Fairbanks, adding enough power to the local grid to supply a dozen homes as part of an 18-month pilot project. >The Alaska Energy Authority will monitor not just how the BAT handles the elements, says emerging energy program manager Alan Baldivieso, but also key logistics like the “ease of anchoring the device, and time and effort to raise, lower and stow the device.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IJuTYK4ao (presentation/advertising video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzCK9Ht0SWk >Floating wind turbine takes to the sky - BBC Click >67,111 views Apr 7, 2015 >The floating wind turbine that could help provide power to remote communities. The helium-filled device, known as The Bat, can adjust its height to take advantage of the weather conditions and can boost mobile phone signals if telecommunications equipment are added to the rig. This model could power up to fifteen houses, but it may only be possible if it flies as far up as six hundred meters. The company working on it was Altaeros Energies (https://www.altaeros.com). https://news.mit.edu/2014/high-flying-turbine-produces-more-power-0515 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZvloe7vqCg >Floating Wind Turbine | The Henry Ford's Innovation Nation >9,037 views Jan 21, 2015 >In this segment from “The Henry Ford’s Innovation Nation” you’ll meet Ben Glass, inventor of B.A.T., a buoyant airborne turbine. In this case the designer even called it the B.A.T., for buoyant airborne turbine. The system appeared to be capable of searching for the best altitude and adapt to this scanning. That said, even with the reduced noise in the video you could hear it when it and I suspect it was quite loud. Now here's the negative part. All of this is already nine years old and you will likely point out that we seldom heard about it since then. Was the tech hogwash or has it been bought and thrown in patent jail to be silenced forever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqORBETo9TM >Airborne Wind Turbines: The Future of Clean Energy? >307,637 views Oct 12, 2024 >Thanks to SurfShark for making this video possible. Go to https://surfshark.com/ziroth for an extra 4 months Surfshark. >Airborne wind energy has been catching my intertest for a few years now, and I thought it was time I looked into it a bit deeper. This video covers a number of developments in the space, including kites, balloons, and drones. A number of great companies have tried and failed, so will it ever come to fruition? Many AWES companies have gone bust regardless of the system they were creating, testing and planned to deploy, although some are still going on and improving on the kite system, but it's a system that looks quite complex and too mobile as each kite needs a wide cone of free movement to operate safely. Now back to the air tampon. The BAT didn't deliver (4 min 26 sec). It seems that it worked but they were aiming for a certain cost per kWh as per the deployment for specific poorer communities and they never managed to get it that low, at about 18 cents. Now that is something I don't understand here. The blimp could catch faster winds and required far less materials. Admitedly flying those things at higher altitudes could be a problem for air traffic so perhaps the promising best performances were simply unattainable because of that. But the technology seemed functional and above fairly silmple, with a much reduced need to control the movement amplitude as no figures were required, contrary to the kite. Plus the equally reduced quantity of moveable parts that are necessary to correct and maintain the course of the kites. All of which owes a lot to very complex autonomous computerized systems, which just adds to the cost and the burden of use. Air turbines in comparison look so simple and the only parameter that seems to require any correction is the altitude. And because it uses airfoils, an acceleration of an inversion of the rotation would make the device mobile. I am truly puzzled by the question of costs. For one the whole mast was not necessary and although a blimp needs to be grounded to a station with its own foundations, a classical wind turbine needs one too. Again, the mast is removed from the equation with the blimp. It's mostly tissue with helium. That's quite cheap in comparison. We have to remember too that the wind turbines are built with taxpayer money. https://todayshomeowner.com/eco-friendly/guides/wind-turbine-cost/ >Updated On April 5, 2024 >Large wind turbines built for onshore and offshore wind farms can generate about 2 to 3 MW, while the largest offshore turbines can generate up to 12 MW of electricity. Needless to say, they’re expensive. While costs can vary, they generally hover around $1 million per MW. The total cost of an average turbine can range from $2.5 million to $4 million, though large offshore turbines can cost tens of millions. The most powerful 12 MW wind turbine costs up to $400 million to manufacture and install. Costs for utility-scale wind turbines can be broken down into three categories: manufacturing, transport and installation, and operations and maintenance. And here's a little digression. >Researchers are constantly working to drive down the costs. New materials can lower manufacturing costs while increasing durability as well as decreasing the weight, which will lead to lower transportation costs. Costs for utility-scale wind power have decreased dramatically over the past decade, but over the past few years, a rise in the price of precious metals have caused the cost of wind turbines to slightly increase. Many are still sceptical as to whether the high initial investment in wind turbines is worth it. While wind power has only recently become profitable, government grants and tax breaks are still required to incentivize investment. Despite the economic complexities, it’s important to remember that renewable energy sources like wind power aren’t about profit, it’s about having a more sustainable future. The technology was on life support since day one and only worked because of taxpayer money. The only reason we went into this was not because it was cheap and profitable, not at all, but because muh carbon. Really. Now let's look at the separate costs of each major section of a wind turbine. Please pay attention to the percentages. Wind turbines are obviously much bigger than the B.A.T. prototypes. >Manufacturing >Manufacturing the wind turbine makes up the vast majority, about 70%, of the total cost. The costs depend on the size, materials used, and country of origin. The components of the wind turbine are manufactured separately, and may even be done at different locations. This is because each component requires specialized engineers, like the blades and the gearbox. The tower is the simplest piece to build, though still makes up a significant portion of the costs. The manufacturing costs primarily consist of labor and raw materials. >Rotor & Blades >Blades make up approximately 20% of the total cost of the turbine. The cost varies based on the materials used. >The size of the blades have a larger effect on price. most wind turbines have three blades, we can say that the entire rotor costs anywhere from $500,000 for average turbines to well over $1 million on larger models. >Generator & Gearbox >The nacelle houses the generator, gearbox, and speed brakes. The transmission, axles, and driveshaft are also housed inside. This is where the electricity is generated. The generator components make up about 35% of the turbine’s total cost, and over 50% of the manufacturing costs. The gearbox is the most important piece of the turbine, and must be durable, reliable, and made with precision engineering. >Tower >The tower and yaw mechanism compose around 15% of the total cost of a wind turbine. Taller towers cost more to manufacture in material and labor costs, but lead to lower costs per kW as they can take advantage of the high altitude wind speeds. >The typical 1.5 MW turbine is about 80 m tall, though some can reach as high as 140 to 160 m. Doubling the tower height requires doubling the diameter and quadrupling the amount of material in the tower. The cost of the tower is around $200/kW. Costs for a 1.5 MW turbine can land around $300,000, while towers for larger turbines can cost over $1 million.

>>88095 >I hear you, but the EU don't do anything against non eco friendly countries. Worse: as they impose horrible regulations to their own industry, they don't require these regulations for importations, effectively killing entire national industries, including agriculture, for the profit of non eco friendly countries. It's just a mix of brainrot and a purity spiral created so some administrators could climb the ladder faster. So what is it? Self-sabotage so they can stick green stickers everywhere but by shafting their populations even more? This is some serious accusation because it implies rather strongly that unless we admit the leaders are all stupid to the point of not even knowing how to bake pies, they are instead actively engaged in the destruction of the lives of (insert EU population) people. Why the hell would they do that? Rather grim and I'm an optimistic person so I'd rather believe in something else honestly.

>>88108 >why Hegelian dialect. Create the problem to force the solution. If the people have to rely on state to survive you can force them accept a lot. That aside a lot of them are legit stupid. You have people with confirmed fabricated degrees who never worked as party leaders and many held no jobs besides politics so they have 0 reference to how things work and are too stupid to deduct it too. Its like a group of controlled retards. Another part of the problem is politics is pure brainrot so anyone remotely smart tends to run from it. Ive had a friend who used to study politics and switched to my degree cause he couldn't stand it. The most essential part was he said they had a lot of free time with no work to do and were supposed to party & build connections. So in other words his degree would have been purely about building nepotism connections and less about learning a lot.

>>88108 Remember this one thing about administrations: it is not about the outcome, it's about the process. If the outcome is a complete societal collapse, it's not going to be an issue. On top of the administrators with their head in a book, you have the power grabbers who see this as an opportunity and would rather rule over the slums than to watch a prosperous country. And then you have the braindead activitst, the useful idiots like Greta. All you need is to play on the sens if imminent doom and to use the will to revolt of the youth that is strong beause the economy is tanking and they eat it like a train in the face and you get entire millions of people ready to do anything, including giving you more power. I would not be surprised at all if China was adding it's soft power into the green politic to destroy the west on purpose.

>>88117 >greta not to disagree overall with your point but are you sure she had any significant effect on da yoof opinion? like 70% of the people I ever saw excited about her are post menopausal women. If greta had an effect on the youth I think its because so many school teachers are post menopausal women.

>>88095 Good point about the EU not actually having denied a country through the green propaganda tool. Nevertheless there is no other rational explanation for me to why the EU would push that green eco agenda so hard otherwise. It would make a splendid eco tyranny tool like I described or, at the very least, a good business with green tech exports. As EU countries are not really owning the best resources locally, the EU relies on such colonial tactics to convince the global south into cooperation.

>>88115 I have to protect these people against your plebeian world view. Me, I have not worked much in my life either, and I have also changed degrees several times without completing any. And if I may say so myself, I am still more capable than most wagies who vegetate in their jobs for years. One of the life realities is survival of the fittest. The ability to live and adapt to various scenarios. What the top wagie lacks entirely because all he knows is routine every day. What I am suggesting is that the demand for politicians to gain wagie experience is just a simple strategy to catch those wagie votes. Don’t fall for it. It is valid to demand of politicians that they attend their work with some seriousness and beneficial outcome. But having not waged before is no hinderance to that at all.

>>88124 But again, there is 0 effort make to get the brics in the green nonsense. The only market the EU can reach is the EU. >>88118 I remember a large number of young people protesting with her in the street in every (western) country she goes. The kind of kid that have faith in science and refuse to admit they can simply be lied to to make them accept authority.

>>88158 The eu is doing deals like importing soykaf meat for being allowed to export soykaf cars. Thats how they currently compete on outside markets.

>>88163 You should mention that the car exporters are Germany and France and the meat exporters are eastern sh-tholes and France. So, the Eu is really Germany forcing eastern Europe to do things for them. They just can't stop doing it. >>88105 How powerful are they and what is their monetary and ecological cost? Compare it to the nuclear energy.

>>88176 Germany has a big meat industry too though. Currently, I see Spain as power player in the EU. They could even pull off that solar utopia because they don’t have soykaf weather.

>>88211 Great post. You painted a very nice picture here. I do wonder whether haarp is such a regular occurrence though.

>>88211 There was quite literally a google doc file created by the initial poster of this thread where they put the main ideological landmarks of Solaprunk, suggesting to take more. Don’t just sh1t suggest solutions then drop it forward. Check it out.

>>88282 I'm open to any suggestions but I think solarpunk is like a child in need of a different custody because the original parents are trashumans (**spelling pun on purpose**). As for OP, assuming no usurpation, he pinged this thread a while back >>85939 That doc is nothing more than a glorified txt file with a few notes and random words. Perhaps he or his group were just datamining us autists and got disappointed with the result. Good thing that is. Let me cite said file: ********************************************************************** neoliberal usurpation fossil fuels greenwashing - cobalt africa lithium deprived andes dualism and cartesian materialism localized supply chains, geoengineering enclosure ; artificial scarcity sanitation, healthcare, education 2008- first international degrowth conference usufruct - shared ownership of the means of production //// common resources to supply their needs rewilding farmland permaculture regenerative-based agricultural systems 50 percent of all food now (farms) ends up wasted urban gardens, cropsharing hydroponics (can b manipulated), cultured meat, aquacultures FOOD AUTONOMY cut down on food wastes cut beef industry which destroys rainforests (Amazon) cut automobile and aero industries by margin local groups & assemblies for communal sharing - most important commons community land trusts (CLTs) library economies (libraries of things), cohousing co-ops drastic increase in self-governance, workers cooperatives lessening of the economic activity in the Global North to make space for Global South ********************************************************************** If OP is willing to intervene fine, but otherwise there's no point pretending it was a serious project.

>>88365 Didn’t the OP mention they’re supplying this directly to virtue investors / venture capitalists or ppl adjacent to the government? What’s so bad in writing out what they should invest in or something?>>88365

>>88541 OP is not even real, that's just one bored person behind a computer fishing for cheap ideas at best, a troll at worst. Grand text file and all that, pull the other one.

>>88585 OP is real but their company is a just startup nonprofit

>>86282 I had missed that one. Answer: all solarpunk representations involve distant cityscapes or even advanced robotics. It's a given that these 'technological giants' won't go anywhere from what we can see. Companies can't even treat recycling seriously because they're allowed to dump their crap anywhere and the governments don't force them to do anything about it. They will probably beg for incentives, I mean holding people's money hostage.

>>88586 OP doesn't even intervene. There's no exchange and no explanation either about what that non-profit company is supposed to be about. Exemptions can be used to manage large sums of money by the way, so that could just be a fake charity. What is there to invest in? OP can go beg for ESG bonuses after coming up with a BS plan, gets some grants and loans and then disappear.

>what the non-profit company is supposed to be about they don't know is why. > Exemptions can be used to manage large sums of money by the way, so that could just be a fake charity wouldn't give them that much credit >What is there to invest in? OP can go beg for ESG bonuses after coming up with a BS plan, gets some grants and loans and then disappear. it would be interesting if thats how it panned out. either way, that has nothing to do with us, we're just spitballing about >how to do green tech

>>88585 i know OP they are real. p sure they did virtue investment planning because their friends are millionaires.

>>88588 Hey! I am the OP. The blue font coloring to my persona that i see as the closest degree of verifiability on this website (however you make it) would be extremely helpful. I speak to some people from the team of lainchan. I dont currently go to the internet as im living near the sea & meditating. I paddled back on the legal stuff, and think someone else might be better equipped to handle the logistical monetary side of this for now. I decided to move forward towards committing myself to studying the eastern sciences and philosophies underlying the ideology of Solarpunk (and Ghibli), so i am still perfectly naturally ideologically aligned with the continuation of the project. I decided to put the visionary part of it into an art degree / level design because i still get visionary lucid Solarpunk dreams. "Datamining us autists" is a funny way to put it, but yes it was indeed datamining. This document was originally a synopsis of a video by Andrewism (who is a popular youtuber on the topic) who said he'd like to participate later, that I attached to spur up the topic. You can contact me @ this mail mentioning any serious inquiries regarding the proliferation of solarpunk: simplelogin-newsletter.equator299@simplelogin.com This is a Proton relay. Thank you - Joanna

>>88599 >the eastern sciences and philosophies underlying the ideology of Solarpunk Such as? >yep btw I totally datamined y'all autists for a leftist eceleb >oh and level design So literally nothing like the alleged project involving virtue investors of large capita and round funding stuff this was shílled as, nor what people here were led to believe it was all about. Next step is publishing some indie slop on poop.io. Can't wait to see you on kickstarter lol. >Joanna Real or fake she? The e-celeb in question: >https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Andrewism >Andrewism, formerly Saint Andrewism,[2] is an Afro-Trinidadian Solarpunk anarchist, artist, and writer. >Personal life >Andrew was homeschooled and selfschooled[3] from the age of around 7.[4][5] The curriculum did not accept climate change or evolution.[6] Due to growing up in a conservative evangelical Christian environment, it took some time for Andrew to embrace his cultural heritage, and learn about Trinidadian history. His first introduction to politics came from Hunter Avallone.[7][8] He is now an agnostic.[9] He is pursuing a BA in Mass Communication[10] He is a digital artist, painter, and poet. His birthday is in March.[11] His favourite colour is golden yellow. >Politics >Andrew enjoys philosophy[13] His favourite anarchist writers include Errico Malatesta and Ashanti Alston,[14] and his favourite political thinker is bell hooks.[15] Andrew has described his political position as post-civilization, post-colonial, solarpunk anarchist-communist (strongly informed by Black Anarchists)[16] with Anarkata tendencies.[17] >Youtube >Andrew started YouTube after one of his blog posts got particularly long, and he decided to make it a video.[18] >Andrew has stated that he is not trying to appeal to the general public, and that he tries to cover topics that are often ignored.[19] His videos exist as an “olive branch to the people who tend to be ignored in favour of this myth of the "rugged white coal mining working class Trump supporter" that everyone has to "appeal to."”[20] He encourages viewers to dig deeper, do their own research, and introspect.[21] Andrew moderates comments to remove racism and disrespect.[22] >Andrew “refuses to compromise [his] most basic principles to "market [him]self" and grow an audience.”[23] >Some of his video scripts can be found on The Anarchist Library.[24] The music in his videos is produced by salmon_the_ghost >He used the name Saint Andrew because it was his artist signature for a bit.[25] Saint is the closest English translation to the Japanese word 全人, which is “a person well-balanced morally and intellectually,” which is what Andrew tries to be.[26] In April 2022, he changed his channel name to Andrewism.[27] >He has described Diary of a Wimpy, Arthur, Phineas and Ferb, and Big Nate as some of the early pillars of his sense of humour.[28]

>>88624 Thread had reached the bump limit and OP didn't create the new one clearly, another lainon did.

>>88618 Yeap, and coincidentally it all went down after that.

>>88624 >nuuuh! my premise can't be utterly stupid from back to end! y..you must be all i..incels or something! Whatever makes you cope any of this is actually viable. Meanwhile the real soyfunk will be pic related so complain while you still can, I guess.. And yeah, mods be like this. At least they keep some of the good threads up.

>>89213 >the weird flat art style that everyone was using for a while for no good reason. When something is decided by the SoyCal and Googleans, there is a reason. For example, compare a nice house with a soul and then imagine what it would look like if this flat design had been applied to every single surface of it, inside and outside. Also notice how the less realistic flat design paved the way to the despicable Alegro style, the latter being purely politically motivated but could have not existed in the former era of pseudo-realism in UI design. There is also something really puerile about it, which is not accidental. It also takes a turn for the abstract, and the more abstract the society is, the more malleable it becomes so the older rules can become murky and get reworked or ignored in favored of synthetic new principles.

>>89212 not as involved in online drama as you, if this if for me >>88619 yeap, Andrew is amazing.

>>89213

>>85646 Not true, It's a giant hello sign for remote drones to occupy and inevitably meltdown not to mention energy weapons and weather weapons. Look at what happened with Fukushima : 180 Billion USD, place is still uninhabitable and almost wiped us out if not for the light beings (caught in their flip phones, no CGI), Chernobyl : 700 Billion USD still uninhabitable and almost wiped us out if not for the light beings (caught on live TV film). It's safer to use Fusion energy like Proton and other sources, we really don't have Energy problem what we have is efficiency problem, heck even Tesla and Tartaria mystic arts is even better to research. Solar only requires rare earth metals and the China problem only made it worse for the west or rather China is going full Shenzhen-Solarpunk sooner and powered by Open RISC-V.

>>89450 >post-scarcity in solarpunk https://medium.com/chain-reaction/living-in-a-post-scarcity-society-how-automation-ai-and-universal-basic-income-could-reshape-the-de5b44704d7b I almost hate the post-scarcity myth for how clueless it is about humans. >In a post-scarcity society, advancements in technology, particularly automation and artificial intelligence (AI), play a crucial role in achieving this level of abundance. These technologies enable the efficient production and distribution of goods and services, significantly reducing the need for human labor and allowing people to focus on more creative, fulfilling pursuits. Like what? It's wishful thinking that people will become creative as soon as they don't need to work. This would never happen and most people would likely fall into degeneracy as they wouldn't know how to fill bland lives, always looking for the next more radical entertaining and vice-laden trend to spice up their vapid existence. >Today, we are experiencing the Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by the fusion of digital, physical, and biological technologies. The rise of automation, AI, the Internet of Things (IoT), and advanced manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing, has the potential to transform the global economy in ways previously unimaginable. All we see is that lives do not improve, misery keeps growing, hope is but a mere memory and wars are monopolizing the media stations. >Automation has led to concerns about job displacement, as machines and algorithms can now perform tasks that previously required human labor. A 2017 study by McKinsey Global Institute estimated that by 2030, automation could displace up to 800 million jobs worldwide. Quoting McKinsey. They make soykaf up according to their clients' payments and other political agendas. >However, history has shown that technological advancements can also create new jobs and industries. For example, the rise of the internet and smartphones led to the creation of jobs in e-commerce, app development, and digital marketing. None of which comes anywhere close to being green. Quite the contrary. >The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2020 estimated that by 2025, 85 million jobs may be displaced due to automation, but 97 million new roles could emerge in response to the technological shift. Why work if you will own nothing and be happy? >As automation advances, the nature of work will continue to change. The demand for manual and routine tasks will decrease, while the demand for cognitive, social, and creative skills will increase. Definitively the next step in mandatory DEI hires, no doubt. >A 2020 report by the OECD found that about 14% of jobs are at high risk of automation, while 32% will face significant changes. This highlights the need for governments, educational institutions, and businesses to invest in reskilling and upskilling programs, as well as promoting a culture of continuous learning. Soon followed by "we need more imported skilled labor." The Indian IT dream. Pop that curry pot. >However, it is important to note that these gains may not be evenly distributed across society. Without proper policies in place, automation could exacerbate income inequality, as those with the skills to work alongside machines may see their wages rise, while those without such skills may see their job prospects and wages decline. "May." >AI has the potential to revolutionize the healthcare industry by improving diagnostics, treatment plans, and patient care. I totally trust Big Pharma in using AI to reduce its own profits for the betterment of the population. >virtual nursing assistants Is that the world you want? >In the financial sector, AI and machine learning are being used for fraud detection, credit risk assessment, and algorithmic trading. AI will help humans defeat Wall Street. I swear. >The rapid growth of AI raises several ethical concerns, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential for job displacement. "Concerns." >To address the cost concerns associated with UBI, various funding models have been proposed, including wealth taxes, carbon taxes, and taxes on automation. TAXXX Doesn't sound much like post-scarcity. >In a post-scarcity society, the importance of education and skill development will likely increase, as individuals need to adapt to the evolving job market and the demands of an AI-driven economy. How come this idiot is still using the words "job market" and "post-scarcity" in the same sentence? If the smart robots make menial jobs irrelevant, why would people need to get more education and skill development since not only will they be out-competed by the machines and the more clever workers, but will also be quite happy just doing nothing and collecting the monthly social UBI? This looks more like an incentive to become dumb and fat. >The rise of online learning platforms, such as ******** and ***, has already begun to democratize access to education and offer diverse, skills-based courses. Not so long ago we had a thing called schools for that and it was democratized enough it seems. >In a post-scarcity society, the efficient use of resources and a focus on environmental sustainability will be crucial for maintaining global abundance. Automation and AI can contribute to sustainability by optimizing energy consumption, reducing waste, and improving supply chain efficiency. At least something I can agree with as far as the theory is concerned. Because the purpose of the article is to explain the mechanisms of a post-scarcity economy in the near future, which in turn we can relate to the idea that post-scarcity would be an obligatory aspect of solarpunk. But more AIs, more machine and more server farms means far more power consumption and use of rare earth materials, all of which has been a source of increased geopolitical tensions just as much as it increased the release of CO2. >sustainable agriculture It's always been sustainable before the poisoning, the GMOs, seed patenting and disruption of the natural cycle of traditional farming. >it will be essential to invest in mental health care, community-building initiatives, and programs that encourage social interaction and foster a sense of belonging. That doesn't sound good at all. Exactly why should a healthy economical system require even more spending on making sure people don't go psycho? You wouldn't even need to ponder this is the solution was truly beneficial to a population. Overall I must question whether the entire article has been shat by an AI or not.

>>89440 Exactly what I was saying the the 1st thread. How do you write a good story with this setup? Everybody was happy and had everything for no reason and then everybody kept being happy and having everything they want. Good luck with the sales. The autistic rage that you encounter is due to the pant on head policies of the greens. Their latest iteration is net zero, I suggest that you look at what it mean for real life people. Anyway, post scarcity solarpunk exist in real life. You may not like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir3eJ1t13fk >>89454 I just want to highlight this line: >2020 report by the OECD found that (...). This highlights the need for more government, institutions and corpos And what comes next? We are going to tax everything.

>>89454 >I almost hate the post-scarcity myth for how clueless it is about humans. Even if capitalism does deliver post-scarcity, the idea that socialists can then just jump in, redesign society from the top down and somehow the post-scarcity will magically continue without any of the social/economic variables that created it in the first place is severely misguided.

>>89497 Banks wrote those on purpose, focusing on the places where the Culture dealt with issues that its own opulence couldn't solve. >Star trek is the same way, and the closer they come to looking at the society of the federation directly the more all the writers start making it less of a perfect happy utopia with some border troubles. DS9 is typical of that, encapsulating the rough frontier mindset where the Federation's principles rub shoulders with other cultures. One of the best iterations of the show. I don't bother with anything made after ENT. The action packed JarJar movies and the DEI-woktivism of the late shows are beyond what I can stomach. All big licenses have been ruined. >Solarpunk is a vision more than it is an ideology, to the extent it is an ideology its a cargo cult ideology, and a cargo cult genre, trying to emulate some of the trappings in the confused assumption that the rest will follow. They just don't know what it should be really beyond pretty pictures. The pseudo ideology is so superficial that any digging brings in and out of concept issues. For one, how do they get that amount of high technology and abundance with an obligatory massive yet unseen industry that would not pollute? Well it just does, that's the fictional part. Just call it magic at this point. It feels like a pedestrian Star Trek episode for neo-hippies. Don't get me wrong, I love nature and I would really enjoy some forms of high technology become non-intrusive and not be abused by shadow groups, sellout governments and big corporations. That would definitely be post-cyberpunk where solarpunk would not be the result per se but the whole struggle of moving past the corrupt/pollute state of life. This would imply that anyone tackling these issues would be capable of true criticism, yet what solarpunkists espouse is a completely compliant stance delivered from above by the very groups they should be fighting against. In other words there is no Make Solarpunk Great Again as if it had been co-opted, since at its very core it was born from an already falsified idea of what was wrong in the world. There is nothing "alt" about it when it stems from the most normative leftist ecological activism possiblr. For this alone it is very dishonest. The real solarpunkism should be a near-future projection of our current struggles. It should acknowledge the technological nightmare and show the stories of people fighting to change it. It would be a return to positive futurism of the 50-60s but with a greater focus on the countryside. But this by definition is way too conservative. You know how something is fake af when the dedicated Criticism section on wikipedia is barely a minuscule paragraph long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk#Criticism

So my father installed solar panels at his home. The batteries are too expensive though so he only got a small 5kWh one. Now with the summer nearing, there is a huge surplus of energy during the day that is not used or stored. What can I do to use this energy? Can I use it to make food? Should I open a sex machine park? Idk I have no ideas really. Buying more battery storage is not an option, it’s too expensive.

>>90259 If nothing else, mine monero. It works well on regular CPUs. That said, I hope you find something more interesting to do with it.

>>90259 hey, try vertical gardening powered on solar if you are in the city. try rooftop gardening if you're in the between city and forest area. if you're going for smarter, maybe solar powered cropsharing. if you're around the bay area or ny, it could land for an urban planning project and will quickly find a hungry virtue investor for some cash. i would start small. some stuff in the solarpunk doc at the beginning of the first thread outlining the basis of solarpunk economy and money-making (and in the manifesto) can just outright purely be copied and recreated in smaller scales to be honest sounds like an interesting experiment though, and if you had any anonymous contacts i'd like to participate

>>90275 Thanks. I considered running servers but I don’t really need servers. Mining soykafcoins is a thing of the past, but I’ll look into Monero. Thanks. >>90280 I don’t understand the benefit of gardening that is using the generated electricity when I could just plant in the garden or on the balcony?

>>90294 You might be onto something here but the real reason airships were drezzed is because they couldn't carry cargo.

>>90308 We have plains that cant carry cargo so cant be the cause.

>>90308 airships werent derezzed they still sort of exist just in small niches. I guess its more blimps than airships but imho this is a nit not worthy of picking. Because they're a lot slower than planes they're not useful, their main value afaik presently is taken to be high altitude, low cost, long loiter times. This is good for surveillance and for advertising and not that much else. First main uses of aircraft were surveillance, hot air balloons saw a lot of use in second half 19th century war. When no other options were available they seemed an OK transport method too, but though planes and airships both have payload restrictions, planes are so much faster. I know some people have been lately (last ten-ish years) been looking at very low cost blimp cargo systems but idk if thats going anywhere. Shipping is so cheap I struggle to imagine this being useful except for remote inland areas where haste is not a factor....resupply for south pole bases or something.

>>90294 >Airships were derezzed because they are too clean & quiet, they are safe and have been used for may centuries. Come on they weren't even a serious thing until the beginning of the 20th century. >>90309 They can't carry any meaningful quantity of cargo and they're extremely slow, boringly static. If you wanted to make them faster, they would just be capable of lifting their own turbines and nothing else much. And that's just to go forward, but if you wanted more lateral control you'd need another set of engines just for such maneuvering. There would also be more pressure to take into account, the structural integrity of the lattice that contains the gas has its limits. And let's not talk about the danger of the transportation itself, as helium is too heavy and really is a poor replacement for the very dangerous hydrogen. Vacuum lifting, the maximum lifting that could be reached, is capped too. Roughly speaking, air has a density of 1.225 kg/m³. To lift one tonne of shipment you would need to make room of 1,200 cubic meters of air. A 10.63 meters wide cube. For just one tonne of shipment, not including the materials necessary to create the whole ship itself, even less the nacelle and at least one or two people manning it. Perfect vacuum would therefore still require even more than this already considerable amount of volume of void to be created, and all attempts thus far have terribly failed anyway. There's also the funny fact that the less fuel the ship would carry, the harder it would be for it to land as it would tend to go up. To avoid this issue, the ship's own structure would need to already weigh enough on its own to reach some kind of balance so that it would be limited to how far up it could go on its own, and its shipment would help weigh it down. You just cannot beat trucks, trains, planes and boats to carry stuff around.

>>90445 >helium is too heavy This is nonsense, even Hindenburg-class airships were designed for helium, it was merely political bs - banning the export of helium - that changed things. And that excuse was used to create the hindenburg disaster psyop which was used to justify banning airships. There are structures all over like the Eiffel Tower that were designed for docking airships. The technology has been used for a long time.

>>90525 Had the Hindenburg used helium, its efficiency would have dropped a significant notch. These airships are just big balloons with a ridiculously small cargo capacity and an horrible air drag profile. They make for pretty things in the sky and that's it. There was no conspiracy to get rid of them, as if they were some super innovative and efficient technology. They were phased out because they simply suck. They're too big, too slow and too fragile to achieve anything of value.

>>90584 They don't burn buckets of fossil fuel for every kilometer they travel, that's the point.

>>90638 >cruises aren't really wealthy coded, most people who I know who go on them are probably middle or lower middle class/old folks. Airships could cater to the same market or one a little higher brow but still be just a cool fun adventure rather than a way of getting somewhere in particular. I didn't, even for a moment, claim that sea cruises belonged to luxury. That's because they essentially are decently built and decorated horizontal floating habitation blocks laced with entertainment hubs and jammed with people, so it's very profitable per individual and covers the fuel expenditure alone. But the ratio is just not there when you move to airships, which will suffer even more because there's no economical scaling as they will be fairly few and unique. I agree with the rest of your post.

Geez I'm surprised this thread lived that long. >solarpunk is a literary genre of fiction It is not. It's a political ideology with a global neocommunist agenda hidden behind feeble appeals to positive sentimentalism and short term projections, most of which are pretentious and superficial with barely any real story to back them up. I don't understand what that tendency is with forcing green material into cities beyond what is already found. Go to small to medium cities and when the mayor is not obsessed with cutting down trees you see that you already have enough flora around. If the intent was to increase the amount of green areas then they could not be wild. Why? Because when you think of parks you will see that wild life is largely absent and reduced to small creatures in limited quantities. These are heavily controlled environments and true wild life would be a nightmare to manage within a city. To balance out this increase of wild life a predatory factor would also have to be added and it's just impossible to have this in the vicinity of houses. Remove the predators, the critters return and ruin everything. The human hand replaces the predator but then requires constant maintenance. So what is solarpunk then? Current cities but with twice the amount of trees? Is that what this is all about? Meh that sounds insufficient to declare the birth of a whole new movement. As for the climate crisis I simply don't see it. None of it for real. Cut the TV off and go around. Real history will tell you that we've lived in warmer and colder times, that civilization grows at an easier rate when the global temperature is hotter. A slow change in the climate situation, that's natural to me. Where is the crisis part? I live in a place that's green 24/7, almost all year long safe when it's very cold. We always properly managed water reserves and since the main waterway is very small and comes down from the mountains, there's no way for a company or an enlarged city to encroach on that natural resource. The flow hasn't changed in more than a century. My great grandfather experienced a dramatic land slide when he was in his 40s and that's it, he and the locals worked hard to reinforce the sections of the town that were more at risk of damage and we've been fine since then. That's it. I love and respect nature but I feel like there's an attempt there at speaking in our name about an existential threat that simply is not there outside of excessive hoarding enabled by corrupt political agents. Some idiots wanted to replace pastures near my place with solar panels and we simply said no to this and they caved in. They were like b-but the sun and all that, talking of the beautiful hot summers to collect so much free energy and we just had to remind them that the hotter things get, the less efficient their solar panels become. We just have a few on some roofs, not much, we already observed the effect of temperature on their efficiency. But the idiots didn't even know. It's like magic to them. And don't get me started on the old panels that start to wear off and leak, all ending in the rain water if you put it on a roof.

>>90764 >Go to small to medium cities and when the mayor is not obsessed with cutting down trees you see that you already have enough flora around. many places its not the mayor but the people who byandlarge make these choices. One individual can in ten minutes destroy a tree which took 20 years to grow. City government can do things, but most of what government can hope to do is stewardship of a virtuous population, and much good will follow from that virtue. >when you think of parks you will see that wild life is largely absent to be fair larger animals require quite larger ranges. A one-acre park cannot sustain by itself a community of elk much less a community of wolves. If you want wildlife in a city this means in my observation, to not have great barriers and to have greenbelts and strings of parks/pleasant gardens that allow the beasts to enter the city and travel deeper into it comfortably. Plenty of cities with deer in fairly urban downtown areas, coyotes, etc.

It's funny how the EU tries to push "green" energy the most when almost any other place in the world has better perspectives concerning solar energy. Also, looking at this map, my current favorite for a solarpunk society is Mongolia now. They are used to a low-tech lifestyle, and I think most of their yurts are powered by solar panels nowadays. They are basically already living the solarpunk lifestyle.

I feel mixed on solarpunk. I'm not convinced that such a genre of fiction exists. Second, I do think it falls into the standard 'green' ways of thinking. But I do like the kinds of conversations it can bring up. >>90776 >most of what government can hope to do is stewardship of a virtuous population, and much good will follow from that virtue. Yeah, its pretty clear that protecting individual freedom and commerce as the sole objective of government has basically failed. We need to start looking at Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius again.

>>90819 >Yeah, its pretty clear that protecting individual freedom and commerce as the sole objective of government has basically failed. Never existed, the free market is a lie to convince public there is no issue with the rigged market we always had. The entire economic system itself is also a ponzi scheme which contradicts any appeal to save resources. You cant be environmentalist while preaching growth and consumerism and doing soykaf like planed obsolescence.

>>90820 >You cant be environmentalist while preaching growth and consumerism and doing soykaf like planed obsolescence This is why acceleration-ism is not a real ideology, just a tool for creating useful idiots in order to further concentrate wealth in the hands of few.

>>90831 Huh? accelerationism is supposed to crash the whole system so fast that those who are in control are made to flee and let go of their control.

>>90856 Its not an ideology but a strategic framework. The basic idea is that systems and trends which are unstable can be accelerated so they grow faster and then collapse faster. This has minimal ideological implications and can be applied as a strategy by pretty much anyone.

AI is not part of most solarpunk scenarios, as soplarpunk is human-centric. AI is a huge dilemma for environmentalists as AI makes heavy use of energy and resources. Pretty sure that some environmentalist glitterboys will want to ban AI for the common folks.

>>90865 accelerationism was mainstreamed in the mid-2010s culminating in a Guardian article about accelerationism in 2017 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in i think the definition you're using was mainly popular as it rose in 2015, 2016 as it was accelerationists who were blamed for the united states presidential election outcomes. however, the coin was first termed in the 2005 novel Accelerando as Accelerationista, a political party. Accelerando is a dystopian novel about the singularity. In the years that followed, the term accelerationist was used to describe a few political commentators who drawing from the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit that had just closed with the disappearance of Nick Land. Those bloggers were focused on the apparent contradiction of capitalism seeming to speed up in some ways as it evidently stagnated. those bloggers went on to publish books and rise to tenured academic positions, more-or-less logging off from the internet. one of them - Robin McKay - began Urbanomic Press and Collapse Journal (the same entity) in 2006 whose first print edition was in 2012. In 2014, they published #accelerate, the accelerationist reader. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(journal) https://xenogothic.com/2023/01/03/nowhere-fast-what-happened-to-accelerationism-part-one/

>>85972 they say cold fusion is like communism in USSR - it has been 69 years already since they started promising "cold fusion" and it has always been "two decades after".

>>90861 LOCAL a.i., comrade! LOCAL tiny small AI that runs locally, not a huge KombinatMayak-sized device. >>90877 >Accelerationista *insert Accela joke ehe-re*

>>90818 >I think most of their yurts are powered by solar panels nowadays They mostly use coal. >>90860 True. Accelerationism was a communist movement initially. Socialism is the unavoidable future of capitalism and communism the unavoidable future of socialism, so let's not try to convert the masses and make technological progress faster instead, this way the entire world will be communist in 1950. Somehow, a few individuals still buy it. Now it's mostly the SHTF doomsday preppers. It can only fail so make it fail sooner. Any day now.

Did anyone save the last solarpunk thread before it got deleted by a mod? Any archive URL perhaps? It seemed to go on rather well til a bunch of anons soiled it with their disagreement on where it stood politically. Maybe the thread's been moved to some dirt board?

https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-07-30-against-evs-stellantis-losses.html Oh look! EVs being a scam! Are we going to abandon them? No. Better yet, let's import Chinese EVs! >The convergence of academic criticism and industry turmoil raises serious questions about government mandates forcing rapid electrification despite weak consumer demand and infrastructure gaps. They don't want to save the planet, they want to force people into an all pervasive electronic surveillance grid.

>>100507 >They mostly use coal. yurts are off-grid, so they won't show up as part of the country's energy sector. They do mostly use gas-powered motorcycles though, for obvious reasons. >>100861 analysis by a former Shell and Aramco employee shows that electric vehicles are bad? Say it ain't so!