this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
124 points (96.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43899 readers
943 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we eliminate the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, our agricultural output will drop enormously and a significant fraction of humanity will starve to death.
I think if youβre driven to find non-fossil road pavement strategies, you should refocus your efforts on finding non-fossil sources of nitrogen for fertilizer.
Food is way more fundamental than roads, and itβs far more heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
Well this thread is a discussion on alternatives and what you think are not talked about enough, so thanks for informing about fertilizers. I certainly didn't know that they were also reliant on fossil fuel.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Reducing the use of fossil fuels in other things leaves more for use of growing food.
No, they mean the Haber process that requires energy-intensive (can mass-solar do it?) hydrogen to convert nitrogen back into ammonia.
It's about return on energy. Fossil fuels return 20x what you invest it's essentially free energy.
(edit: roughly, this translates to how many people are free to do things with the work of one, if every person lives alone, it's 1, if each person has a personal slave/robot, it's around 2, we want to stay well above 2. Modern society has 19 people doing all sorts of non-survival things for each one farming and collecting resources because fossil is so "cheap")
Renewables can reach 5-10 at best, which is not so bad (medieval was around 1.3, pre-industrial with slavery was around 1.8), so you can do it, but it will have to reshape society, which will be fine, if we know what we're doing or can at least imagine what we are aiming for to avoid disappointment. It's hard to be utopian going backwards.
This whole debate started with carbon footprints and carbon pricong, because I believe that creating a market can help the less virtuous among us to use their greed to help solve the problem of public consent in a consumerist society without devolving into a dictatorship.
But yea, let's aim for that energy return of say... 7 and try to imagine what such a society would look like. A return to slower shipping by sail again...more solar boilers for all hot water...solar desalination...peak-solar hydrogen for fertilizers and airplanes...more compact cities with mass transit and bikes, lots of working from home, more fixing things DIY...a return from cities to the countryside and decentralisation would help, but only if those communities were more self-sustained and local, with 2x more power to farming, mining and wind/solar communities (meaning potentially smaller countries)...now I could describe all the potential setbacks of all of those points, but I won't, because this is solarpunk and we need more imagining of what things are going to be like when we succeed...not so much the year 500 :)