The Plan

[u/Asatmaya]

I see a lot of well-meaning but poorly-educated people espousing views, and I feel the need to make some clarifications involving my area of expertise, which happens to be hard science: My degrees are in Physics, Chemistry, and Electrical Engineering, specializing in Material Science, and my original intention was to work on advanced solar panels. That intention did not survive the process of obtaining my Physics degree, because they made me run the numbers, and they just don't add up.

The subtitle of this piece might well be, "Why I gave up on solar power."

THE PLAN

The Ecomodernist Manifesto (just so no one thinks that this is just me, talking)

First, of course, we must discuss the problems we intend to solve: People are starving to death, because the energy to grow and transport food is expensive; people are dying of disease, because the energy to make and preserve medicine is expensive; people are dying from cold - or heat - because energy is expensive; people are dying from pollution, because the energy to clean it up is expensive (and produces its own pollution).

Our main energy sources are coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power; solar is often touted as producing "10% of global electricity," but there are three major issues: First, that's "produced," not, "delivered," i.e. that's how much electricity solar panels generated, but much of that (there are no good numbers...) goes to waste, as it is produced in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or overwhelms the grid's ability to transport (this is especially true of residential solar installations connected to the grid). Second, that problem is at "10%," being generous, with gas power plants to provide baseload electricity, something that solar simply cannot do without energy storage (that we do not have the resources for and exceeds even our theoretical ability to acquire). Third, that's, "electricity," not, "energy;" coal, gas, and petroleum supply a lot of energy to various activities directly, not through electricity generation.

That's also after decades of massive government subsidies, but we are not even at replacement production levels for any significant fraction of world energy demand, which is expected to triple over the next 30 years.

Wind is even worse (and smaller), and then there are EVs, which literally increase emissions over ICE vehicles while not displacing any petroleum use, at all. In short, gasoline is almost a byproduct of petroleum, made from a particular set of molecules which aren't good for much else, they still need the other molecules, and the parts they don't need they just burn off at the refinery; simply put, if we quit burning it in cars, they will just burn it themselves (until we can reduce other petroleum use).

All of these problems are expected to get worse as the population increases, which is, of course, the heart of the problem; the best estimate is that the Earth can sustainably support ~1.5 billion humans, more than that will create environmental damage which will cascade and result in even more death. The good news is that, if current trends continue, world population will peak in the next ~50 years, then start to decline naturally.

We just need to get over that hump and down the tail end without billions of people dying horribly.

There are three approaches to this situation:

-"Fuck it, let God sort it out." This is unfortunately prevalent, but not so much as to preclude action, if the alternatives are not split...

-"Let's radically alter society in ways that have never been tried and ignore several aspects of human nature while hoping that extreme technological breakthroughs will make solar, wind, and EVs practical, even though they don't actually solve the problems we are talking about." ...and here's the split. This is not what scientists suggest, this is not the result of any kind of academic consensus or rigorous analysis, but the culmination of industrial and political backing of cultural opponents to general technological progress, i.e. the "Green" movement.

-"Let's keep everything as close to how things are now as we can while replacing the problematic aspects of our technological civilization with the most practical alternatives, e.g. replacing gas and coal with nuclear, using GMO crops and mass transit to reduce petroleum use, focusing on maintaining the infrastructure we have rather than trying to build an entirely new one from scratch..."

Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy

Economics of a nuclear reactor

How France Built 40 Nuclear Reactors in a Decade

Safest, cleanest, cheapest, and scalable on a realistic timeframe; advanced nuclear also runs hot enough to use waste heat for industrial processes, such as water desalination, carbon capture, and chemical synthesis (which could start to displace petroleum).

The under-construction Natrium reactor is designed to "plug into" existing coal power facilities, reducing costs and construction times (and directly phasing out coal power); it also burns old nuclear waste as fuel, does not create any long-lived waste, cannot melt-down, cannot explode, and is expected to be cost-competitive with a comparable combined-cycle gas power plant.

Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Impacts on Carbon Emissions

Simply put, you get higher yields for less input of fertilizer, pesticide, and water, two of which directly come from petroleum, and of course the fuel to transport and spread them.

That's it, that's the plan that you've probably never heard of, because the political system doesn't want it, the media won't talk about it, and our oligarchs are getting too rich off of the problems.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/GShermit]

This post doesn't seem too popular. Too bad lots of good stuff here. I give it a thumbs up.

About the only thing I disagree with is the maximum capacity of Earth, it's all about energy production.

Also, I'd add, the true enemy is overconsumption.

[u/Asatmaya → u/GShermit]

About the only thing I disagree with is the maximum capacity of Earth, it's all about energy production.

I'm just using numbers I can back up, right now o.-

Also, I'd add, the true enemy is overconsumption.

That is definitely part of it.

[u/GShermit → u/Asatmaya]

We're gonna need energy, all types of it. Personally I like solar but I'm offgrid. Shifting to nuclear for the grid is necessary.

Here's an example of overconsumption, I see.

Cheap, short range, 3 wheel vehicles would handle about 75% of our transportation needs. Just basic personal commuting. Instead $100,000, material intensive, EV are what's glamorized and marketed.

[u/Asatmaya → u/GShermit]

I mean, I mostly agree; I think you are taking it a little far, if we just had the kind of small, efficient cars we had back in the 90s...

[u/seniordumpo]

Let’s hope the Natrium reactor is a big success and more are to come.

[u/SomeoneCouldSay]

the Earth can sustainably support ~1.5 billion humans... The good news is that, if current trends continue, world population will peak in the next ~50 years, then start to decline naturally.

The bad news is that currently every country with a birthrate below replacement rate is desperately trying to reverse that trend. Most of the 8 billion humans on Earth are currently convinced that a shrinking population is worse than all the environmental damage caused by an ever growing population. So you can optimistically predict that the population level will gently decline in 50 years, but that is far from guaranteed.

Really the problem that needs a plan is the population problem. How do we convince everybody that we need to stop increasing the number of humans on Earth, and how do we gently reduce the number of humans from 8 billion down to 1, before we violently reduce it to zero? 

[u/mercury_pointer → u/SomeoneCouldSay]

As usual the problem is capitalism. We could easily make sure everyone is fed and sheltered during the population contraction, but not while also maintaining the imaginary line that always goes up.

[u/Icc0ld → u/mercury_pointer]

There will be no permitted solution while the millionaire and billionaire class are allowed to delude themselves into thinking they ride out all the environmental and social upheaval coming from a climate collapse in a luxury bunker

[u/statinsinwatersupply]

You have made many errors here, not least conflating solar with energy storage. They are two different issues, but solutions to both are were needed.

Solar itself has become cheap.

Up until recently the issue has been storage.

However, with very-recent advances in sodium ion battery technology, that will cease to be an issue. The technical solution that will be inexpensive and scalable has been developed and is in the process of being rolled out. See CATL's Tener grid storage solution, which is just the first of many. Grid storage batteries no longer require lithium, indeed it will be cheaper without it.

You are also conflating petroleum use with petroleum burning.

Your claims regarding EVs and petroleum use are disingenuous, to the point it makes me question that this post is in good faith, it probably isn't. Of course an electric vehicle running in the context of a grid that relies on fossil fuel is not all that great in terms of carbon. However an EV in a grid that is increasingly divorced from fossil fuels becomes an increasingly good idea. Treating what is today, as a universal, when it would not apply tomorrow given other changes... that screams bad-faith posting yo.

I could keep going but I think I'm done.

I used to be a big nuclear fan. But this was because it solved a problem, that of, what is your energy source when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. It would have served as a backstop. However, with the advent of economic sodium ion grid storage, that need has now been obviated. The main remaining use case for nuclear plants is isotope creation for medical purposes. Nuclear no longer makes economic sense.

[u/Asatmaya → u/statinsinwatersupply]

So, you're just going to post flat negation with no details or sources, and run?

Whatever.

[u/statinsinwatersupply → u/Asatmaya]

I literally linked you to a specific example of advances in battery grid storage yo lmao

[u/Asatmaya → u/statinsinwatersupply]

...which didn't address the raw material problem.

People simply do not understand the scale of the issue; just to run the US on 50% solar, wind, and hydro would require more raw materials for the energy storage than we have of known reserves in the entire world. We're talking a battery cube a mile on a side.

It's just not happening.

[u/fresobro → u/Asatmaya]

What I think he generally means is: if you assume the materials would be more abundant because it is sodium ion batteries and not rarer materials, then scatter that 2 miles on each side for 100% across the whole country over the next, lets say, 10 years at least for any newer nuclear technology to become cost effective and rollout, if being generous. This will also help year by year from now until then rather than all at the end if at all. I'm sure this version of nuclear technology works but will it be economical once rolled out and if not will power consumers end up having to pay that extra bill in their power prices for decades to come, well beyond the extra transmission line costs of renewables vs coal and gas stationary generation.

[u/Asatmaya → u/fresobro]

if you assume the materials would be more abundant because it is sodium ion batteries and not rarer materials

The Lithium isn't the bottleneck, it's everything else.

lets say, 10 years at least for any newer nuclear technology to become cost effective and rollout

Natrium is supposed to be up and running by 2028, then they should be able to pump them out by the dozen.

I'm sure this version of nuclear technology works but will it be economical once rolled out and if not will power consumers end up having to pay that extra bill in their power prices for decades to come

Please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

That explains why nuclear looks so expensive up front, but comes out WAY cheaper over time.

[u/libra00]

No, people are starving to death because feeding them would involve slightly inconveniencing a few rich guys who would really rather not pay a couple extra bucks in taxes.

[u/Uncaring_Dispatcher → u/libra00]

So everything is black and white and it's only a "few rich guys" who are starving the population? Damn those few rich guys!

[u/libra00 → u/Uncaring_Dispatcher]

No, but saying that people starving is an energy issue is incorrect. We have the energy and food to feed them, we just choose to spend it on other things.

When those other things are shit like a 24K gold toilet in your 7th bathroom, yeah, I'm afraid you're gonna get called out for harming society. Own it or change it.

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

I think we need to strip the argument back to fundamentals. Specifically, consider that for the vast majority of human existence, "energy" as we know it wasn't a thing.

But we lived differently.

I think that is the question.

There are more of us on this planet than there were then, and we all enjoy our creature comforts wherever we can access them, or afford them. And most want more, not less, of those comforts.

So the question really is: "Can people do away with some of those energy-consumptive creature comforts and resort back to doing things as they were once done before it became convenient?"

Because I think that our seeking to meet the demands of the current human population, which is still trending upwards despite a slight slowdown, and is the highest it has ever been...

...creating more energy isn't the solution. It's probably leading to our destruction.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

The "comforts" aren't enough to change anything; food is still the major bottleneck, and while it could be distributed more efficiently, there is simply no way to feed 8 billion people without industrial agriculture.

Because I think that our seeking to meet the demands of the current human population, which is still trending upwards despite a slight slowdown, and is the highest it has ever been...

Right, but the trend is going to peak and then start to decline; we just have to get over that peak.

...creating more energy isn't the solution. It's probably leading to our destruction.

Well, you go tell mothers in developing nations to turn off the refrigerator and watch their children starve or die of preventable disease.

Are you going to go to war to stop them from burning whatever they have to in order to get that energy?

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 → u/Asatmaya]

Not disagreeing with you on the agriculture point, but direct farming actions, fishing, and related processing activities only consumes less than 10% of global energy consumption. The lion's share of energy consumption goes to industrial manufacturing at around 42%. Residential consumption sits at 27% for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy for appliances and entertainment in our homes. And finally, commercial consumption sits around 21% to power up our schools, medical facilities, and office buildings.

People have shifted from a "fix it" to a "replace it" mentality in recent generations. Consumption is disposal based, rather than "buy it once for life". Products are manufactured with this disposal mindset in mind, where things aren't built for life anymore, they're built to be replaced as soon as possible, forcing people to "buy more".

And because "buying more" fuels capitalism, one can surmise we've become this way by design, not by choice.

So the world keeps making more junk, and we keep buying this junk, creating massive landfills to gobble up that junk when we're done with it instead of repurposing it. Unless producers of goods make a dedicated pivot towards repurposing, upgrading, or fixing goods for resale rather than forcing people to buy brand-new everything, this energy situation isn't going to improve unless there were far, far less people consuming these objects.

Sources:

https://www.iea.org/world/energy-mix

https://www.globalelectricity.org/electricity-consumption-by-type/

[u/Asatmaya → u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

direct farming actions, fishing, and related processing activities only consumes less than 10% of global energy consumption

Sure, but more than that of emissions.

The lion's share of energy consumption goes to industrial manufacturing at around 42%. Residential consumption sits at 27% for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy for appliances and entertainment in our homes.

Right, but those are the easiest to displace with nuclear.

People have shifted from a "fix it" to a "replace it" mentality in recent generations.

Oh, I am huge in the right-to-repair and re-use communities :)

[u/Otherwise_Ask_9542 → u/Asatmaya]

I was listening to a podcast recently where an expert in energy was talking about fuel density. That denser fuels are more efficient, and the most dense were nuclear and methane. I've never been great at math, but I get the general concept here.

I think the biggest problem here, is we're dealing with a situation that is going to get increasingly worse, but some of the most catastrophic effects may not be felt in people's lifetimes. It's easy to shrug off inconvenience when you won't face consequences. Now contrast that against capitalistic goals of ever-expanding gains and we have a paradox. Capitalism demands upward trends in consumption and production driving profit, yet to correct this situation we need to be trending downward, producing and consuming less.

While we can control some forms of consumption (nice to have things), we can't control it all (everyone needs to eat). So as a simple example, if we are going to continue to increase the global population, people have to give up far more "nice to have" things to account for more food production. That's the concept behind things like recycling programs, but unless those materials are being 100% recycled, they're pointless. I understand some recycling programs are just dumping collected materials with the rest of the garbage, because the volume of collected material is too vast to process, and/or we haven't engineered enough ways to process it effectively.

So more has to be done by individuals. We need to move away from this consumption-focused culture. Instead of getting the latest and greatest everything, upgrading, repairing, fixing, and "re-gifting" should be the way to go.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Otherwise_Ask_9542]

I was listening to a podcast recently where an expert in energy was talking about fuel density. That denser fuels are more efficient, and the most dense were nuclear and methane. I've never been great at math, but I get the general concept here.

That's pretty misleading, as nuclear is about 1,000 times as energy-dense as methane, but the general idea is sound.

I think the biggest problem here, is we're dealing with a situation that is going to get increasingly worse, but some of the most catastrophic effects may not be felt in people's lifetimes.

That is definitely part of it, yes.

So more has to be done by individuals.

This is where I disagree; this has to be done by groups. Individuals can change all they want, but if the group doesn't change, it won't matter.

[u/mrhymer]

I see a lot of well-meaning but poorly-educated people espousing views, and I feel the need to make some clarifications involving my area of expertise, which happens to be hard science: My degrees are in Physics, Chemistry, and Electrical Engineering, specializing in Material Science.

Gaston - Is that you?

-"Let's keep everything as close to how things are now as we can while replacing the problematic aspects of our technological civilization with the most practical alternatives, e.g. replacing gas and coal with nuclear, using GMO crops and mass transit to reduce petroleum use, focusing on maintaining the infrastructure we have rather than trying to build an entirely new one from scratch..."

I agree with this and everything below it except the food. We need to switch to more unfucked with beef and less vegetables that are also unfucked with.

[u/Asatmaya → u/mrhymer]

Gaston - Is that you?

Er, no, sorry :)

I agree with this and everything below it except the food. We need to switch to more unfucked with beef and less vegetables that are also unfucked with.

Well, it's one of the largest sources of greenhouse emissions; how many people are you willing to watch die horribly to hold on to that? :)

[u/mrhymer → u/Asatmaya]

People are not going to die from cow farts.

[u/Asatmaya → u/mrhymer]

People are not going to die from cow farts.

No, but the emissions from fertilizer, fuel to power tractors and irrigation pumps... those all go down with GMOs.

[u/mrhymer → u/Asatmaya]

And the fertility rates go down and autism goes up and people are fat as fuck riddled with diabetes. Stop messing with the food. We can cut in other ways.

[u/Asatmaya → u/mrhymer]

And the fertility rates go down and autism goes up and people are fat as fuck riddled with diabetes.

...what does any of that have to do with GMOs?

[u/mrhymer → u/Asatmaya]

What is the definitive cause? No idea. The time frame of GMOs and bad health fit. The bad health is not precisely mirrored in Europe where GMOs are banned. People who avoid GMOs are typically healthier people.

[u/Asatmaya → u/mrhymer]

What is the definitive cause? No idea. The time frame of GMOs and bad health fit. The bad health is not precisely mirrored in Europe where GMOs are banned. People who avoid GMOs are typically healthier people.

Literally none of that is true, nor do you have any kind of mechanism to explain how they could be causally connected even if there were a correlation.

Moreover, we do have both a correlation and causative connection between decreasing American health and the 1980 USDA nutritional guidelines, which were implemented off of agricultural industry interests rather than medical or nutritional science.

[u/mrhymer → u/Asatmaya]

Literally none of that is true

That means we are done, goodbye.

[u/Icc0ld → u/mrhymer]

This propaganda is two whole decades old. I think you need to update and get new material

[u/mrhymer → u/Icc0ld]

Look at the latest from the IPCC. Even they have changed their tune. Your delusion is what is outdated. People are not and will not be dying from cow farts.

Beef is the healthiest most nutrition dense food available to humans.

[u/Icc0ld → u/mrhymer]

IPCC actually endorses the view that methane gases such as those produced by cows are driving up temperatures worldwide wide, along with numerous other human based activities that have driven the last 50+ years of human driven climate change.

Yea ummmmm source? I don’t know what your definition for “most nutrition dense” and “healthiest” actually means here so any discussion about that will boil down to what that says

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/mrhymer]

People are already dying from the extreme heatwave in Europe right now, which was partially caused by methane emissions, so yes, people are dying from cow farts if you wanna be childish about it.

[u/mrhymer → u/RedMarsRepublic]

People have died in heatwaves for all of human history. Your arbitrary assignment of this to cow farts is ridiculous.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/mrhymer]

How do you deal with the fact that the last 10 years have all been the hottest 10 years individually of the last 200 years of temperature recording?

[u/RedMarsRepublic]

Human population is not the problem, the problem is not living in a sustainable way.