Comment

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

Large scale use of nuclear or fossil energy does the same thing as adding tons of nitrogen to a lake

To my knowledge, electric energy generated by heated water is not producing any kind of effect comparable to nitrogen dumped into a lake or CO2 into the atmosphere. If there’s some source suggesting otherwise, I’d be curious to read it.

By using nuclear or fossil energy, humans are causing the equivalent of eutrophication of our own environment.

I think you’re confusing fossil fuels with fossil fertilizers. And eutrophication just isn’t a major concern in a planet that’s losing biodiversity and biomass to excess heat.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

To my knowledge, electric energy generated by heated water is not producing any kind of effect comparable to nitrogen dumped into a lake or CO2 into the atmosphere. If there’s some source suggesting otherwise, I’d be curious to read it.

You’re not understanding my analogy.

Eutrophication is the addition of too much food for one type of living thing in an environment, allowing it’s population to grow too large for the ecosystem to support. This is exactly what the Green Revolution was for humanity.

I think you’re confusing fossil fuels with fossil fertilizers.

I’m talking about fossil energy in general, all forms of it. Fossil fertilizers are one form of fossil energy.

source
- UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  This is exactly what the Green Revolution was for humanity.
  
  I haven’t seen any evidence of this. At best, you could argue its been wheat, rice, and corn undergoing eutrophication. Perhaps cattle. But outside a few exceptionally well-fed western enclaves, we’re operating below the standard intake of our hunter-gatherer predecessors. Blame our sedentary lifestyle or our aging population, but most humans consume below the 2750-3000 calorie diet of our ancestors.
  
  I’m talking about fossil energy in general, all forms of it.
  
  Then you’re talking more on the industrial scale than the physical. And that’s got far more to do with our tolerance for waste than our appetite for raw inputs. For basic needs like light and heat and travel, we’re significantly more efficient thanks to a host of modernizations like insulation and mass transit.
  
  source
  - mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Still not quite getting my analogy. I’m not merely speaking of calories, or how we decide to dispose of waste.
    
    I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
    
    –> I’ve never seen anyone use this terminology before about “human eutrophication”, I made it up. But if you want more info on this topic, www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjhb8Nu1Sk
    
    The evidence is the apparent non-sustainable lifestyle that is only possible by the addition of energy not part of the natural short-term energy cycle of the planet. We are making species go extinct and destroying this planet.
    
    By using fossil/nuclear energy we are able to produce enough food to quadruple the population this planet could sustain without that extra energy. All those extra people need more than food, and in producing all the other needs for this expanded population, we damage the ecosystem. The planet is not ours to use, we are
    
    source