this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
1690 points (95.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

5863 readers
3878 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“Economic problem” isn’t merely short form for “if we had a socialist system we could solve it with free money.” These solutions require us to dig huge amounts of minerals out of the ground and tear the earth apart in the process. And we’re already doing that at a rate exponentially larger than we ever have in history. Plus these are the same materials we need to build the batteries for EVs, so building them for grid storage competes with the EV transition.

And then you factor in the rapidly increasing electric demand we’re producing by switching over to EVs and that means the demand on the grid is even higher. The grid wasn’t built to be able to source power from everywhere so putting solar panels on everyone’s rooftops is making the situation even worse.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's always funny to me that the first argument is always thinking that socialists want free money.

How many billions are we giving away to big corpos for them to do buy backs and pocket the change?

Being socialist means reusing the tax money for the benefits of the citizens, not the corpos. Trickle down economics are a sham and never worked

I agree that it takes resources, but we could finance the extraction of these resources instead of giving subsidies to fossil and fuel industry, or paying for sports stadium for that matter, or giving money to any corpos really.

And let's not play coy here and think that the fossil industry isn't destroying the earth.

We have the money, and the solutions right now, but the profits are in the way.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The issue with the green energy transition (renewable energy, grid upgrades, grid scale storage, EVs, and elimination of fossil fuel household heating) is that well over 90% of all the critical minerals we need are mined and/or refined in China. No one wants to move any of this stuff to the US because the environmental damage and refining waste are extremely toxic, far more so than any other resource extraction we do here.

Furthermore, all the end-point usage of these resources (making solar panels, capacitors, semiconductors, printed circuit boards, and finished electronics assemblies) is all done in China as well. So if we mined and refined all the minerals we’d end up shipping them all to China to be used in manufacturing.

So now if you want to avoid all that you’re talking about building the entire electronics supply chain inside western countries. But then you face the further issue that there simply aren’t enough electrical engineers in the west to work at these factories. So now you’ve got to retool the entire education system to train a new generation for this critical work.

At the same time, you’re having to deal with the fact that most Americans don’t want to work in these places. TSMC has been very vocal about their struggles to build these chip foundries in the US and hire Americans at the low wages it actually takes to make this stuff competitive against the obscenely cheap products coming from China. Now consider the fact that TSMC is considered a crème de la crème employer in Taiwan, and the factories in China making capacitors and other bulk commodity components pay far less and have far lower margins, and you can begin to see the issue.

Americans want the green energy revolution but they don’t want to give up even an inch of quality of life to get it. Neither the rightest of the far right Republicans nor the leftest of the far left Democrats has expressed any desire to volunteer to lower their own standard of living. The whole story thing is a big fight to try to force other people to lower theirs.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

A lot of the issues you describe are directly linked to money. Yes it takes time and investments, but look at situations like the Covid where pretty much every western countries got caught with their pants down when a vaccine needed to be produced, or PPE were short.

I understand that it takes time, efforts and money to get to a point where we will have a renewable grid, but there's always people complaining that it's not the perfect solution, so we should continue on the status quo.

The best time to start was decades ago, the second best time to start is now.

But at this point, this is a political discussion more than a technical one.

We have the means to do it, but not the will.

And yes, our quality of life will definitely be affected, but climate change is already doing that, and the grees that is causing that.