Canada Sought to Be a Hydro Superpower. Now Its Rivers and Lakes Are Drying Up(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Canada Sought to Be a Hydro Superpower. Now Its Rivers and Lakes Are Drying Up
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/canada-had-designs-on-being-a-hydro-superpower-now-its-rivers-and-lakes-are-drying-up-928ef721
34 comments
What's interesting is this could make areas like AI - that are already dirty and environmentally harmful - even worse. If we don't have a clean source of energy to power the data centers. Concerning.
I think I read or heard somewhere awhile ago that water will be the new oil of the future, and wars will be fought over it.
I think I read or heard somewhere awhile ago that water will be the new oil of the future, and wars will be fought over it.
Well shit, this is a bit concerning for a reason not discussed:
Canada is the world's largest producer of tritium, one of the crucial fuels for fusion. They do this through their heavy water reactor fleet. Without it, it will be additionally difficult to launch fusion power into a viable power system... We will probably need to invest in breeder reactors once Q>3 is achieved.
Canada is the world's largest producer of tritium, one of the crucial fuels for fusion. They do this through their heavy water reactor fleet. Without it, it will be additionally difficult to launch fusion power into a viable power system... We will probably need to invest in breeder reactors once Q>3 is achieved.
Viable fusion will need breeder reactors for tritium?
"Old fission" isn't technically a viable economic power system anymore, at least in its current forms. Solar/Wind are so cheap, and still getting percentages cheaper each year, that it gets harder and harder for other forms of power to compete.
Even combined cycle natural gas turbine with downstream heat recapture to exceed Carnot efficiency limits can't compete with wind/solar.
I get what you mean about viable fusion in just sustaining a energy-positive reaction. But even if that is achieved, fusion will likely not be economically viable outside of industrial high-heat constant-load applications (which there are a lot of, fission should be able to handle those but the waste and proliferation concerns are a real barrier).
If there are breeder reactors needed for fuel ... forget viable grid fusion power.
"Old fission" isn't technically a viable economic power system anymore, at least in its current forms. Solar/Wind are so cheap, and still getting percentages cheaper each year, that it gets harder and harder for other forms of power to compete.
Even combined cycle natural gas turbine with downstream heat recapture to exceed Carnot efficiency limits can't compete with wind/solar.
I get what you mean about viable fusion in just sustaining a energy-positive reaction. But even if that is achieved, fusion will likely not be economically viable outside of industrial high-heat constant-load applications (which there are a lot of, fission should be able to handle those but the waste and proliferation concerns are a real barrier).
If there are breeder reactors needed for fuel ... forget viable grid fusion power.
The three Ps are the only thing that can save the human habitat: permaculture, powerdown, population control.
I had no idea degrowth was a thing on hackernews
I like this joke intuitively but perhaps I'm missing the reference?
might not be a joke in there. degrowth is a thing a lot of people believe in unironically.
Because unchecked, endless growth in a finite environment is something we can believe in unironically, right?
There's no finite environment in an infinite universe. We are not anywhere near utilizing even 1% of what's available on this planet.
growth can also mean efficiency increase, not only "expansion". I rember that Japan is the most efficient society in its use of inputs at around 20%. there is enormous space for growth
According to dipshits like Jeff Bezos they want trillions of us living in space on stations like house cats.
I want to live on a space station.
What’s ironic about not believing in perpetual growth with finite resources?
Saying it in a situation where we don't utilize even 1% of available resources. Much closer to 0.0001% than 1%.
Also saying it in a situation where we don't even really attempt to be efficient.
Now I'm all for efficiency - but that's not what the degrowth people are saying.
Also saying it in a situation where we don't even really attempt to be efficient.
Now I'm all for efficiency - but that's not what the degrowth people are saying.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
Despite some flaws with the above it is not crazy to believe we have finite resources. Your numbers are sadly orders of magnitude too low.
Despite some flaws with the above it is not crazy to believe we have finite resources. Your numbers are sadly orders of magnitude too low.
That's a complete pseudoscientific quack, sorry to be so blunt.
Even if it wasn't, it doesn't meaningfully invalidate anything I said.
Even if it wasn't, it doesn't meaningfully invalidate anything I said.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818166/
Let’s see your source for such a low percentage. I can tell you know we don’t have enough lithium for 1e6x more electric cars then we have now.
Now maybe you’re imagining a future where we can replicate things so we do have the raw materials ie atoms? I’d agree with that
Let’s see your source for such a low percentage. I can tell you know we don’t have enough lithium for 1e6x more electric cars then we have now.
Now maybe you’re imagining a future where we can replicate things so we do have the raw materials ie atoms? I’d agree with that
The number of people who've read LTG and think the world3 ressource usage predictions are accurate is crazy. The authors themselves say it's not accurate and overly simplistic.
By very far the threat to humanity is global warming, not resource depletion.
A lot of degrowthers want resource depletion to be very important because that's the only way what they call "green capitalism" doesn't work, but that's not fact-based.
Sadly for them basic pigouvian taxes + subsidies to innovation + reasonable behavioral changes (due to taxation) will mitigate most of the problem. That's completely compatible with what they despise as "green growth".
By very far the threat to humanity is global warming, not resource depletion.
A lot of degrowthers want resource depletion to be very important because that's the only way what they call "green capitalism" doesn't work, but that's not fact-based.
Sadly for them basic pigouvian taxes + subsidies to innovation + reasonable behavioral changes (due to taxation) will mitigate most of the problem. That's completely compatible with what they despise as "green growth".
"By very far the threat to humanity is global warming, not resource depletion."
One begets the other...from either direction.
One begets the other...from either direction.
How would you recommend implementing population control?
Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries.
This alone would massively impact population growth.
This alone would massively impact population growth.
"Emancipation of women and free education for girls worldwide. Raising the standard of living in poor countries."
Yup, let's push our ideology on other countries because the west is white is right.
We won't go into the impact certain gender equivalent movements have had on the world.
Yup, let's push our ideology on other countries because the west is white is right.
We won't go into the impact certain gender equivalent movements have had on the world.
Western populations are shrinking already, so it would have to specifically target peoples in Africa and the Middle East. Turns out degrowth advocates and Neonazis have shared goals.
They're shrinking globally. https://www.sciencealert.com/birth-rates-are-plummeting-in-m...
That said, the world will probably be black by 2200. Makes sense.
That said, the world will probably be black by 2200. Makes sense.
Malthus would say disease, famine, and war.
But the new world brought urbanization and birth control, which appears to be the most effective.
And since we are discussion overpopulation, I need to emphasize that the 8 billion people in the world (holy shit, it was 3.6 billion when I was born. I'm not that old) isn't the important metric.
The important metric is the lifestyle / resources consumed per person. China, India, etc all want US-type lifestyles, personal vehicles, abundant and varied food.
Yeah, THAT can't be sustained with our population. Our world survives because about a billion people live like that, probably 2 billion / 25% live in poverty (translate poverty to "doesn't consume a lot"), and the rest live spartan lifestyles.
The danger of global warming isn't really the heat or weather changes. The gradual pressure applied by global warming intensifies geopolitical conflict and reduces viability of farmland, the "war" and "famine" of malthus. It probably will increase disease too, but modern technology seemingly can handle that a lot better than back in Malthus's time.
But the new world brought urbanization and birth control, which appears to be the most effective.
And since we are discussion overpopulation, I need to emphasize that the 8 billion people in the world (holy shit, it was 3.6 billion when I was born. I'm not that old) isn't the important metric.
The important metric is the lifestyle / resources consumed per person. China, India, etc all want US-type lifestyles, personal vehicles, abundant and varied food.
Yeah, THAT can't be sustained with our population. Our world survives because about a billion people live like that, probably 2 billion / 25% live in poverty (translate poverty to "doesn't consume a lot"), and the rest live spartan lifestyles.
The danger of global warming isn't really the heat or weather changes. The gradual pressure applied by global warming intensifies geopolitical conflict and reduces viability of farmland, the "war" and "famine" of malthus. It probably will increase disease too, but modern technology seemingly can handle that a lot better than back in Malthus's time.
What conspiracy nutjobs think: SECRET STERILIZATIONS THROUGH VACCINES, ABORTING THE UNDESIRABLE, AND GENOCIDE
What normal people think: family planning, greater economic opportunities that do not require large pools of familial labor to achieve, better healthcare leading to fewer dead babies thus a lower incentive to have large families.
What normal people think: family planning, greater economic opportunities that do not require large pools of familial labor to achieve, better healthcare leading to fewer dead babies thus a lower incentive to have large families.
I don't think calling China's actions for the past 4 decades to achieve this exact goal a "conspiracy" is reasonable.
Yes, because China is the model to follow. Why didn't you bring up the Rwandan Genocide? Much faster results!
There are a fair number of people who have no issue with what China did and as such it is fair to ask somebody advocating for the same policy if they support China's method.
The only needed population control is to wipe out all Americans. That would do more than wiping out people from several continents.
But I bet that’s not what the “population control” crowd is thinking.
The “population control” crowd is almost certainly thinking fewer Africans and Asians who consume a 10th of what they’re consuming themselves.
But I bet that’s not what the “population control” crowd is thinking.
The “population control” crowd is almost certainly thinking fewer Africans and Asians who consume a 10th of what they’re consuming themselves.
Wipe out America and another imperialists take it's place. That's not the answer. Hookey as it sounds living in harmony with nature, recycling, reusing and resource management are what's best.