Recent comments in /f/UpliftingNews

Big_Subject_1746 t1_j6tkg2t wrote

My old college house we used to shoot paintballs at them. It took awhile but they learned. It was hilarious cause every once in awhile youd seee one with some paint on it! We had different colors so we knew who hit the racoon. We eventually made the landlord get a better dumbster. It was just to accessable to critters. The key was to get the neighbors to call. They liked us cause we kept the place nice unlike previous tenants. Shoveled driveways and what not. Kill 'em kindness hahahaha!!!

13

Virtus_Curiosa t1_j6th3p4 wrote

Renewable energy comes from more sources than just wind. Hydroelectric, solar panels, biomass, and geothermal to name a few.

Also a large part of the development of renewable energy sources is long term storage of that energy eg: batteries. So they charge up when the production peaks and get drained over time. ideally there would be a large enough buffer for the energy to remain consistent as the fluctuations in production ebb and flow.

Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's risk vs reward with nuclear energy. It's powerful and relatively clean energy, but when (not if) stuff goes wrong it can go REALLY wrong. Radiation is scary. People are completely right to be afraid of it. That said, you can be afraid of something and still realize it's usefulness and take appropriate precautions toward its use, learn from the mistakes made in the past and make a better system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

It's a big list.

7

pdonchev t1_j6tcuov wrote

Not only. "Transitioning" countries in Europe don't have sufficient sources of electrical energy in the winter (also in summer, but winter is the bulk of the deficit) and happily import cheap dirty energy from other countries, while bragging about being a clean economy. And then you have the biggest bulshit of the 21th century so far, the gas-backed solar and wind. Where the gas sometimes is the bigger source. And then you have the wind turbines that not only have embedded a lot of dirty (and cheap) energy, but when installed they would not recuperate even this energy during their operating lifetime, but the economies work because you sell the smaller quantity of clean energy at a much bigger price.

To measure impact on the earth, the emissions for all exports should be subtracted from a country's pollution footprint, and added, together with the transportation emissions, to the footprint of the importing country. Then the charade will be clear - for now powerful (rich) governments mostly externalize emissions (in the process increasing them), while their countries continue to be the largest emitters by a large margin.

−6

mjfi4cp2 t1_j6tblld wrote

It depends if anything distorts the market. If not, reduced demand should lead to temporarily reduced prices, then reduced supply and stabilisation of prices at a similar level. If demand keeps reducing, the same should happen, but the economies of scale are slowly lost, so the price goes up from its historical low.

Realistically, there will be some distortion, so it may be that the price paid for coal varies a lot in different parts of the world based on policy, lobbying and existing infrastructure. I think coal is clearly on its way out in Europe though. It’s already becoming an issue for things like preservation steam railways here, with alternatives being explored to deal with the effective death of coal.

3

Enlightened-Beaver t1_j6ta85h wrote

A Super soaker was recommended to me by pest control to keep raccoons out of my yard as a non-lethal, non-harmful deterrent (capsicum did literally nothing). And guess what, super soakers totally worked!

38