Sonori @ sonori @beehaw.org

Posts

12

Comments

424

Joined

2 yr. ago

While I agree with most of the articles points, even if they and the title are nearly all phrased in very hyperbolic language and the extent of the “slowdown” has been rather overstated given that sales are still increasing, I take issue with it citing Norway’s 89% EV sales as insufficient becuse only 20% of vehicles on the road are EVs yet.

Namely, the average lifespan of a ICE car is 12 years. While it’s definitely better for the environment to replace a functional ICE with an EV after two to four years, buying a new car when you don’t need to is a big financial cost and so it shouldn’t be surprising that many people are waiting until their cars get old to replace them.

While I also agree that simply replacing every ICE with an EV isn’t enough on its own and that trollybuses and other electric mass transit need to be part of the solution, it’s not a question of one or the other. If we are to have any hope of staying below 2C, we need to be doing both and a whole lot more beside, especially when it comes to cleaning up industry.

We simply don’t have the time left anymore for any one solution to be expanded to the point it can solve the problem on its own, if that was ever possible to begin with. We need solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear to generate clean power in the first place. We need heat pumps and geothermal to turn that into the heating and cooling necessary to keep people safe in a world with increasing dangerous temperatures.

We need trollybuses, metros, and high speed intercity rail to electrify the transport of people. We need denser housing in our cities and EVs in our rural areas and service and delivery vehicles. We need overhead cantanarys to electrify our railroads. We need green hydrogen to decarbonize farming, steel marking and a thousand other processes. We need net zero bio and synthetic fuels for ships and aircraft. We even need carbon capture and sequestration to deal with the industrial processes that can’t otherwise be decarbonated.

Any framing that expects a single one of these to solve the problem on its own ignores the things it can’t cover. Our current actions are insufficient to tackle the scale of the problem, that is not a sign we should roll back one in favor of another, it is a sign that we need to be pushing increasing the scale of all of the above.

I do hope we stay federated, while I get that moderation is a pain for you Admins and better tools need to be developed, I think you all have been doing a very good job. Nearly all my interactions with the wider fedeverse we interact with have been positive or neutral, and I think it would be rather dead and boring here if it was just us. It’s nice to have diverse subscription feed where I can find posts on more than just the few communities here, especially slrpnk, Bajhaj, lemmy.ca, and midwest.social

Yes, the water is not particularly radioactive. It does however contain the spent fuel rods at the bottom that are.

This Nitter thread sums it up nicely i think. Shamelessly stolen from Five@slrpnk.net.

this nitter thread

The Lancet report puts about 42.8 percent of the recoded killed being nineteen or under. Assuming that raitio has remained consistent, and using the twenty one thousand, five hundred and seven deaths recorded as of Dec 29th, that puts the number of dead kids at nine thousand two hundred and five.

While it is more difficult to actually figure out how many Hamas Israel have actually gotten, given that a lot of the Israeli fire has been launched at buildings where Hamas broke in, lobed a RPG from a shoulder fired launcher, then drove off within a minute, or have been against refugee camps and other purely civilian targets, it’s unlikely that many actual terrorists more important than the now easily recureted cannon fodder have been successfully killed. Especially given that many of the ones involved in the all or nothing attack on Oct 7 never actually made it back to Gaza.

Moreover, given that Israel has been more than happy to share names when it actually has them, and generally there haven’t been that many, putting a vague estimate at about a hundred or so isn’t that unreasonable.

Even the best case Israeli numbers put it at less than one terrorist per kid, given their reluctance to back any of that up the amount of evidence they have since walked back, and how terrorist groups are organized in the first place, it is very unreasonable to use said estimate.

I mean it was just mixing up two similar names, the point remains the same.

Hey look, they do have ways to target Hamas without leveling a civilan skyscraper using artillery. While there were a few civilian casualties in this instance, I have been repeatedly assured that you have to use dumb bombs that go “off target” to land on a ambulance or crowded parking lot, and that killing eighty kids per actual Hamas was the best poor Israel could do.

Trademarks only matter if the intention or effect is to impersonate the business. If you started makeing feature length movies and used Steamboat Willy in the opening to trick customers into thinking it was a Disney movie they might be able to sue, but otherwise trademark doesn’t work that way.

Urbackup has windows and linux backup agents and I believe is open source, but I don’t know if it has a windows server.

Veeam is pretty good, but not open source and the community version is limited to ten agents.

So what your saying is that the title is technically correct, becuse the water spilled was containing nuclear materials, but written in such a way that anyone reading it would come to the wrong conclusion that radioactive material contained in the water left the plant.

Weird how that happens when you constantly invest in scaling up a sector.

Right, I had just responded off the top of my head and got the name wrong. Point still stands.

It frustrates me to no end that the automakers who are known for their boring but practical cars and who’s customer base is the most likely to want an EV are instead still messing around with hydrogen becuse the Japanese government sunk a lot of money into a nuclear hydrogen plant and can’t stand the idea of just using it for industrial applications.

Like even if it works, produces masses of cheap hydrogen and makes it cost competitive, you would still need to license and build dozens of new plants in each market you wanted to export to, which means maybe the cars become viable for export by 2030, by which time your not competing with gas vehicles but electric ones.

Once people get used to the convenience filling up for cheap at home, I suspect it will be really hard to get them to go back to going out and spending five to fifteen minutes every single week driving to the gas station.

You could also just set your DNS to one of the many free DNSSEC providers. That’s even more secure because there are fewer middle men who can track you. After all, while your ISP may not be able to see that DNS traffic, if you arn’t using DNSSEC anyway then your VPN and their upstream provider can.

Besides, nearly all tracking nowadays uses third party browser fingerprinting, which a VPN does nothing about. Practically, a VPN is far more security theater than actual security.

Also, isn’t it funny that sending all your data though a second nation where it no longer legally counts as Amarican internet traffic became really well advertised right after a major scandal came out where the NSA was illegally monitoring American traffic, and more protections were put in place to keep them from doing it again?

You don’t even need the VPN company to be in on it, a group like the NSA can pretty easily compromise a “no logs” VPN’s technical infrastructure or that of their upstream provider, and they’re even got people who feel like they have something to hide to self select for it to cut down on the amount of boring traffic in the first place.

Thankfully most signs are that the PLA is targeting having a force capable of credible cross strait operations in 2027, so we still have at least three years. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the US all know this and have been spending the last two plus years reshaping thier militaries to be capable of directly opposing such an act, and in doing so it is become pretty clear that any cross strait action is only going to end in a lot of CCP ships on the bottom and a good fiscal year for Lockheed Martin.

In doing so it makes it vanishingly unlikely that it will actually move beyond posturing in the first place. Unlike in Ukraine where the West has committed to supporting and resupplying the victim, many of the Asia Pacific Nations are committed to providing active military operations in defense of Taiwan.

That being said there is still to my knowledge no Asia Pacific equivalent to NATO Article 5 unfortunately, which may result in dangerous doubt in terms of credible deterrence, especially if the CCP believes it has friends that will quietly bow to it in Tokyo and Washington in 2027. For all of Trump’s shouting, most of his actual actions involvedo withdrawing the US from everything he could that China didn’t like.

While still unlikely, credible deterrence still requires the Chinese Intelligence both believe and be good enough at handling bad news to accurately report that up the chain of command, and as the FSB demonstrated in Ukraine that’s not necessarily a given. If there are enough yes men, then things could get very bad indeed.

Key word was cheaply, current costs if synthetic fuels are two to four times the current market rate at best, not available to the public, and heavily limited in their inability to scale within the necessary timeframe.

Any vehicle’s metal components can be scraped and recycled, and if your talking about component reuse EVs have far, far fewer consumable parts as compared to ICEs. While you can rebuild an engine with all new consumables, we’ve also been rewiring motors for just as long, and indeed the motor has far fewer wear items that require a rebuild in the first place. Indeed given the thriving conversation space and its demand for EV parts, they are often more recycled than all but classic models of ICE. EV batteries have proven trivial to recycle, and the frame and such are practically identical to ICE versions.

The majority of plastics are single use and a landfilled, and are just as prevalent in ICE’s as EVs.

The higher rate of write offs for minor incidents is consistent across many new vehicles, and is more a case of insurers lacking a large dataset from which to draw stats from than any inherent technological factor.

We can cheaply recycle gasoline now?

Not exclusively, but unfortunately in North America a lot of marketing has been put into maximum range, and so lithium iron phosphate is still in the minority of market volume becuse of the thirty percent volume penalty. Things are better in China with the larger focus on budget options, and they even have a sodium vehicle now on the market, but to my knowledge lithium cobalt still makes up the majority of North American EVs, in volume sold if not in models.

Who need the Saudi’s when Canada is the fifth largest oil producer in the world and shares the majority of its infrastructure with first place just down south.

I’d argue that the techs been here for at least a decade. In modern production EVs the only negatives are that while on a road trip you have to stop every two and a half hours for a whole twenty minutes and arguably price, through the latter is mostly just a North American thing. Better a minor inconvenience now than a perfect solution after the last coral dies.

As for mining, Australia’s lithium mines arn’t much different than any other major mines, much less the drilling and fracking needed to supply the constant consumption of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

As much as trollybuses and overhead electric trains are definitely the best solution for urban and suburban transportation, where they can and do bear cars even from a speed, comfort, and convenience standpoint, we can’t reasonably expect to relocate everyone in Canada to urban areas, and even if we did you would still need hundreds of thousands to millions of vehicles for transport, delivery, emergency, etc.

Even the small “carless” villages of Switzerland still need custom small electric vehicles, and Canada requires far longer ranges than small villages that were never connected to the road network.

As long as any of that holds true, your going to need smaller than bus vehicles, and battery electric remand the best option, and thusly I would argue that they are indeed a climate solution. Not the solution, but a solution. We could never replace what has been the foundation of the industrial world with a single alternative. There is simply too much that would need to be covered for a one size fits all solution.