For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
And their vote counts more than yours because they live in rural districts with lower populations. Smh at "democracy."
You really need to trace where the power from that coal plant goes. It probably mostly goes to cities 100's of miles away, (NIMBY). Just like the power from solar and wind farms. Nor was it the choice of those rural Americans to build that coal plant there. But they still get to drive by it so you can game on your console.
American seniors: "Damn Medicare advantage, won't cover my surgery!"
Also American seniors: "Of course I'm voting Republican! We can't let homosexuals in our bathrooms!"
no war but the class war
replace the coal plant with a giant data center that is probably equally polluting.
what did people think "the information economy" would look like??
*double-up the coal plant to power the data center
nuclear is pretty cool.
Memes like these make progressives look like dumbasses.
Look at all that water vapor polluting the air! Omg
Coal and natural gas plants can also use the same cooling tower design.
It looks like maybe a coal plant is depicted, on account of the tall smoke stacks and what look like drop chutes for handling solid coal. But the layout doesn't make sense. What are the smoke stacks coming out of?
You just need to find a long term storage solution that is safe (and cheap) for the next 100.000+ years. That‘s longer than the modern history of humans. At our current trajectory this period will contain hundreds of world wars, none of the current nations will exist and we will have technology far beyond our comprehension. I am also totally neglecting all the companies making the profits today will be gone. Funnily enough many nuclear disposal site are built close to borders, which shows the short sightedness of the designer. Also also the resources for nuclear energy are finite, same as with coal. So we can may be use the technology for couple hundred years at best, but have to deal with the waste way longer.
I am not against new nuclear power plant projects, but please think about disposal first, let companies pay for it today and then think about building the actual plant.
I hate the nuclear hate. Maybe today we have better options, although micro-reactors have a lot of promise, but if we invested in nuclear energy 50 years ago our planet would not even be close to fucked up.
People are always fearful of the nuclear accidents but they don't even come close to those killed in the extraction of fossil fuels, but poor lives don't matter. God help anyone has to bear even a miniscule risk for their own energy production.
Thanks for listening to my rant
One of the issues that often gets swept under the rug is that nuclear power only covers electrical energy needs, unless you do clever stuff. But one of the reason the world has used so much fossil fuel is because lots of industries use it directly.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/how-much-fossil-fuel-is-left/
Sure it only makes up about 80% of global power production.
Every other use is minimal comparatively
I have one problem with nuclear: It HAS to be done responsibly or you FUCK UP EVERYTHING FOREVER. And...find me a government on this earth that can "responsibly" anything.
I thought the primary problem with nuclear is that it is incredibly expensive?
Private insurance for the project is incredibly expensive. But there are ways to go about it differently, if the will is there.
Looking it up to refresh my memory, it looks like there's also the comparably very high construction cost and the cost of disposal and/or maintenance of the waste. Those feel like fairly fixed costs. Unless we can make those cheaper without sacrificing safety and worker pay, it seems like nuclear just isn't economically practical.
Thank you for your rant. It is exasperating how people completely dismiss nuclear and politicians go right along with them.
People on average have a higher risk of exposure to radiation by going to their grandma's for dinner than by living directly next to a nuclear power plant
The top image makes me want to cry. Every new solar farm I've seen IRL or in the media has been built directly on the ground, just wasting that space.
Why is what is in this image, or other such systems, not being done everywhere?
Like at our local IKEA parking area. Why did they empty a bunch of land next to the parking lot and build them there, instead of ontop of the carpark? Thus protecting the cars from the elements at the same time as taking literally 0 space.
They're placed on ground that's usually not being used or isn't being utilized in a better way. Ground solar is much cheaper than any other method and can be put together by almost any idiot.
I like the idea of building them over parking lots, too, though. Parking lots are big contributors to the urban heat island effect as those large black slabs absorb a lot of light and heat. So it would provide a bit of shade and help cool down the general area.
There is the risk of someone hitting a pole but you could just place them like we do with the street lamps - use a concrete base that goes up a few feet from the ground.
Top image is called Agrivoltaics and certain crops do better in a little shade. Strawberries, lettuces, and brassicaceaes for example. Pawpaw would probably do well as well.
Damnit, Stabby, I was trying (not very hard, mind you) to work.
There's a lot of back and forth going on in this thread, a lot of it around environmental impact of coal, and land uses. I'll try to clear some of this up. At worst, you'll just get my ramblings on the topic.
Nuclear energy. I largely agree with @arrow74@lemmy.zip. Nuclear has a shitty stigma, and that really precludes it from being even a transitional energy source, particularly in North America. While the wastes live forever (essentially) they are concentrated, and after a century or so, they are generally similar to other toxic wastes (e.g., primarily alpha and beta radiation), and if properly stored, are pretty safe. I'm not a nuclear expert, however, so this is more of an opinion than anything, though maybe a bit more informed than the average schmoe (though schmoe I am).
Coal mining - historically, very destructive, no land use planning, just let the pit fill on its own, Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (herein: ML/ARD) issues. ML/ARD issues arise when you have metal and sulphur bearing rock that's exposed to atmosphere over time. Sulphur oxidizes, drops pH, and leaches metals out of the rock. This can occur sometimes at neutral pHs but it's less common and dependent on the metals in the rock. If you just leave the pit to fill on its own, it takes a long time, and you're more prone to ML/ARD and water quality issues as a result. If you actively flood the pit, you can largely avoid these issues, but you still need to model, check, and monitor your future water quality so you don't have a pit full of toxic crap. Usually, if water quality is poor, they can use semi-passive treatment (e.g. in pit bioreactors) or actively (water treatment plant) treat water until water quality is good enough to release to the surrounding environment, once the pit's water elevation reaches whatever target they have set out for it.
@MythicalMenace@slrpnk.net points out how mining companies are often required to put money back into the towns around them. This is part of social closure of the mine, so they don't leave behind ghost towns. Generally, though, it doesn't work. Towns need another source of employment once the mine shuts down, but we're largely starting to see mining companies be required to have some sort of social transition plan in place for workers and people connected to the mine.
2a - Mining wastes @grue@lemmy.world yes, coal wastes can be toxic, this links back to ML/ARD I mention earlier. Tailings are crushed (usually to sand sized) rock that's been processed - they usually have faster ML/ARD onset due to their smaller particle size -> increased surface area. @SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world also tied to ML/ARD and water management -see #2 above
3 - coal plants: not much to add here, but they are often a source of metal deposition (via dust, fly ash), and radioactivity (radon in rock).
0.47 l/km? That's not too bad right?
47L/100km is terrible, my car does like 5L/100km.
In the US this would be about 5mpg. That is beyond horrible.
Feels good to live in a rural area that's embraced solar.
