• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The ancient romans also didn’t have solar panels, and actually hydro and wind were totally used in these little things called watermills and windmills. I wouldn’t be surprised if they figured out geothermal heating, too. The difference is that you can simply light oil on fire and that’s easy when you otherwise have a lower level of technology and aren’t ready for better, more advanced ways of generating power.

    You’re none too bright, huh?

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Yes, please describe how that solar panel came into being. Try it without the fossil fuel foundation of every single item we use. Everything from the rubber tires of the delivery trucks to the food the workers eat.

      You are blind to what’s around you. If you think we’re going to support 8 billion people living a Western lifestyle without fossil fuels, I’m afraid it’s not me who isn’t bright.

      How do you support our present industrial civilization with windmills and watermills? We already had these, why did we give them up?

      You’re completely oblivious.

      “better, more advanced ways of generating power.”

      But we don’t. We don’t “generate” power. We harvest energy. And once our little geological energy reserve is drawn down, how do you plan on keeping our present arrangements going?

      You haven’t explained how you plan to make fertilizers, concrete, plastics, with electricity? And you don’t simply “light oil on fire”… Where did the iron come from to make engines? Coal, oh yeah.

      You also think we’ll just spin copper wire and rare earth magnets from sunshine…

      Please go back to AI vibe coding.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You understand that without those wind and water mills that oil couldn’t have become a thing, right? Like I said, oil was a great way to bridge the gap because it is relatively easy to use but it shouldn’t be our end-goal. Having oil for producing things made of it is certainly important but we’d have a lot more to go around for those purposes if we stopped using it for inefficient things like so many personal vehicles, wasteful plastic packaging, and a myriad other things that we just don’t need it for. It’s done its time, it’s time we scaled back and moved on.

        We didn’t give up water or wind mills, either. Canada has so many hydro-electric dams that we literally call home electricity “hydro” and wind farms are only getting bigger and better.

        We don’t need oil to make concrete. It’s portland cement(limestone powder), water, and variously sized aggregates and it’s been around for a loooooong time in one form or another. The machinery used to create it does not need to run on fossil fuels. You may be thinking of asphalt, but even then maybe if we didn’t unnecessarily obliterate our roads with constant heavy vehicle traffic we’d be able to keep them for longer and not need to constantly pour resources into barely keeping them alive or refreshing them far too often.

        For someone with such a raging erection for oil you’d think you’d be more concerned about reducing our dependency on it so that we don’t waste this precious, finite resource.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

          “The cement industry is one of the two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.”

          Another one who is blissfully unaware of how the world got to be the way it is.

          Look, I’m done. There is no way to bridge the gap of understanding between us. Educate yourself. Please.

          Stick to physics, chemistry, facts, and history. And keep the references to hard ons to zero.

          Then get back to us.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            So, CO2 production does not immediately mean oil is required for production of something. Literally further down that article is “mitigation” and it points out the chemical process has nothing to do fossil fuels, directly, but with the creation of alite. The other part of it, burning fuel, can be changed for other stuff.

            Plastic requires oil because it is made of the stuff. Powering a car does not because it doesn’t actually matter where the power comes from. These are important differences. You can make concrete without fossil fuels.

            You’re right, we can’t bridge this gap because you are so beyond stupid that your own source even tells you that you’re wrong. It’d be funny if it was fiction but somehow you’re a real person and that just makes it terrifying.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.”

            So what I’m hearing is… If we switched to alternative energy transportation infrastructure, we could eliminate 40% of the CO2 released from the 2nd largest contributor? Seems like a good deal to me, we should do that ASAP.