-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Climate Change Fight |OT|
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
- Status
But how long until the dead birds pile up so high they'll stop the rotors?
I read power to save the word and even though its from 2007 it still makes a great case for nuclear energy.
Its frustrating that none of the favorites running support building new reactors, the person running solely on climate change is strictly against them, most candidates give very unspecific answers like "exploring new technology" or renewables which are great but cant power our entire grid without huge advancements, one even brought up fusion which has been 20 years away for the last 70 years.
Its frustrating that none of the favorites running support building new reactors, the person running solely on climate change is strictly against them, most candidates give very unspecific answers like "exploring new technology" or renewables which are great but cant power our entire grid without huge advancements, one even brought up fusion which has been 20 years away for the last 70 years.
What's so great about the case for nuclear? I'll say it again and again: nuclear is too expensive!* And renewables CAN power the entire grid, especially in a country the sheer size (and relatively low population density) as the USA. Even assuming ZERO advancements.
* See for example: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf
Have a question regarding metal straws and bottles.
At what point do they make good on their investment.
I'm asking since I know producing them is more expensive carbon wise compared to plastic. So, how many plastic bottles for example, are equal to a metal one in terms of emissions?
Of course there's the "waste" issue as well against plastic, but I'm still curios.
Thanks
At what point do they make good on their investment.
I'm asking since I know producing them is more expensive carbon wise compared to plastic. So, how many plastic bottles for example, are equal to a metal one in terms of emissions?
Of course there's the "waste" issue as well against plastic, but I'm still curios.
Thanks
Just to be clear, i acknowledge that affordability is important and will determine what kinds of energy we use, its just that i dont think anyones going to care about profit margins if human civilization has been destroyed by climate change.
If we can power the grid with renewables then thats perfect, i just dont want to put our hopes on theoretical tech when we already have nuclear plants that can do it.
Well. Renewables can power the grid and they are readily available. And cheaper than nuclear. No theoretical tech needed.
Both overloading and underloading the grid is still the main issue for renewables, when it makes up a high proportion of generation. We still don't have good options for large scale energy storage; lots of batteries are expensive and lose capacity after a few years. There's other options like hydro-pumped storage, however this is very location dependent and still fairly expensive.
When i look it up online most sites are hoping for renewables to be able to power the grid by 2050, i assume they're taking into account advancements in renewable tech, where are you reading that renewables are capable of doing it right now?
(if link does not get you to week 11, please choose week 11 on the left side)
Germany quite often by now has situations where renewables make up a high proportion of generation. Yet... zero blackouts, it just... works. I'm wondering how these Germans do it? That's with still quite a lot of coal in the mix, too, which is not exactly ideal (i.e. gas would be much easier to handle).
Renewables are
a) Readily available
b) Cheap
That's all you need. Advancements in renewables (i.e. wind and PV) are by now just higher efficiency and cost reductions).
Germany do it by importing a lot. They're using the Continental grid as a storage system. When seen that way, their intermittent percentages are nowhere problematic as they have norway hydro, France nuclear (France still being the Major exporter in the EU), and Poland's coal. Their variability is still a blip, especially when u consider that RE Is more variable in low season (aka Winter solar, Summer Wind) when their output plummet anyway and isn't significant anymore (solar being 1/10 or 1/50 of its Summer output isn't that relevant, it's still a blip either way).
Renewables are currently dumping their externailities on fossils, which is a good thing because fossils are much more incentivized in other ways and are causing climate catastrophe, but it's also causing a lot of distortion in the Energy market which Will make It worse in the long run. Solar in most Europe make no sense, It has abysmal capacity factors and has yoo High seasonality to be more than a blip on generation. Solar in Morocco /northern Africa is solar we can build off a grid with, low seasonality, extremely predictable output (no clouds) but not One is planning it (Desertec went nowhere) because it simply make no sense to plan for long term under current standards for Energy auctions and because it would require an actual political effort from our countries, can't have public interests go against the private profit.
Germany is a net exporter of energy, just btw.
But yeah of course Germany also imports from time to time and exports from time to time, that's what a large integrated grid is there for - i.e. it's not a bug, it's a feature. The US grid should be much larger than the one in Europe, so it would be much easier there to do this.
I don't see why PV wouldn't make sense in Europe. Germany is a relatively "bad" place for PV, yet auctions show that you can bring in a profit at just ~4 Eurocents per kwh, i.e. dirt cheap.
Desertec etc. are great in theory, but pose immense political issues.
Btw. how is winter/summer "low season"? I don't quite get what you mean with that.
With their current output and issues with storage i've seen serious concerns about whether there's even enough material to build all the wind and solar farms we would need. https://www.popularmechanics.com/sc...mits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/
Nuclear plants can give us the time we need to improve renewable tech. I know it's expensive but climate change should be the #1 priority, if there's anything we should be subsidizing or taking a loss on, it's clean energy sources.
We also need to educate the public on the lack of danger that low levels of radiation present. People are terrified of reactors despite the fact that nobody on american soil has died from a nuclear plant accident, we've had 1 major nuclear accident in this country, basically a worst cast scenario with tons of operator error involved, and nobody died and very little radiation got out. The plants themselves are not putting out high levels of radiation, if a nuclear plant put out as much radiation as a coal plant it would be shut down on the spot, you could live right next door to a nuclear plant and you aren't going to see an increase in radiation, it's all contained in the waste.
We've regulated the nuclear industry to the point to where storage facilities weren't allowed to have as much radiation as the natural background radiation in washington DC. Low levels of radiation are not dangerous, depending on where you live you might receive hundreds of times the radiation as another american who lives on the other side of the country, radiation from x-rays is far higher than natural background radiation and most people accept x-rays as safe. Scientists found storage solutions that they could confidently conclude would be safe for the next 10,000 years and then judges told them it needs to be safe for 1,000,000 years, they're worried about hypothetical people a million years from now when we have real people suffering from fossil fuels right now.
We never should have stopped building nuclear plants, but if we started building them right now we could have them ready to go by 2028-2030, and they could give us the 20-30 years we need to make renewables the main supplier of energy, or however long they need. We still have another 50+ years worth of uranium, and basically unlimited thorium.
Nuclear plants can give us the time we need to improve renewable tech. I know it's expensive but climate change should be the #1 priority, if there's anything we should be subsidizing or taking a loss on, it's clean energy sources.
We also need to educate the public on the lack of danger that low levels of radiation present. People are terrified of reactors despite the fact that nobody on american soil has died from a nuclear plant accident, we've had 1 major nuclear accident in this country, basically a worst cast scenario with tons of operator error involved, and nobody died and very little radiation got out. The plants themselves are not putting out high levels of radiation, if a nuclear plant put out as much radiation as a coal plant it would be shut down on the spot, you could live right next door to a nuclear plant and you aren't going to see an increase in radiation, it's all contained in the waste.
We've regulated the nuclear industry to the point to where storage facilities weren't allowed to have as much radiation as the natural background radiation in washington DC. Low levels of radiation are not dangerous, depending on where you live you might receive hundreds of times the radiation as another american who lives on the other side of the country, radiation from x-rays is far higher than natural background radiation and most people accept x-rays as safe. Scientists found storage solutions that they could confidently conclude would be safe for the next 10,000 years and then judges told them it needs to be safe for 1,000,000 years, they're worried about hypothetical people a million years from now when we have real people suffering from fossil fuels right now.
We never should have stopped building nuclear plants, but if we started building them right now we could have them ready to go by 2028-2030, and they could give us the 20-30 years we need to make renewables the main supplier of energy, or however long they need. We still have another 50+ years worth of uranium, and basically unlimited thorium.
Just quickly glancing through the article it doesn't exactly sound like this is an unsolvable issue. Just sth. that requires careful planning and foresight.
There are two reasons why nuclear isn't the solution:
1. It's expensive
2. It's a terrible complement for renewables. Or to say it more blunt: it's not a complement at all. If you built massive amounts of nuclear along with massive amounts of renewables, you are stuck in a situation where both technologies need a very well scalable counterpart, but have none.
Yeah, going by those graphs, they're still using a lot of coal to make up for the variability of wind output. They do have some pumped storage, but evidently there's fairly limited capacity for that.
If they didn't have the non-renewable baseloads (and nuclear) then it would be even more difficult to manage the intermittency of wind power.
Is that really your point? That Germany isn't 100% renewable right now? That's not really news... fact of the matter is that Germany has been increasing its share of renewables from ~0 to almost 50% on average by now and the grid is still operating just fine.
Your original argument was: "Both overloading and underloading the grid is still the main issue for renewables, when it makes up a high proportion of generation." I just showed you that that issue doesn't seem to be particularly large in Germany, even in situations with 80%+ share of renewables. Btw. Germany is just my main example, because I know the above mentioned website with lots of data on it.
And btw. nuclear doesn't help at all to manage the intermittency. It hurts! It's pretty much always at ~7.5 kw, no matter what wind, PV, coal, gas etc. do.
My point is that the more variable renewable is used, the more measures must be taken to keep the grid power output stable relative to demand. Baseload nuclear is good, because it reduces the reliance on power sources which have an unpredictable output.
If the output of nuclear on it's own is less than the minimum demand, then ideally it should always be 100% utilised. Renewables and power storage should then be used for for the top end of energy output, for which consumer requirements will vary throughout the days and seasons.
Germany is not 50% renewable by any stretch, not even including biomass and hydro. On top of that, the only reason they've gotten their net generation higher is because they export during the day and import at troughs. Which is to say if other countries had the same grid mix, Germany's renewable generation would have nowhere to go. It's why, for example, california with its 50% renewable grid isn't technically so, they literally pay neighboring states to take their excess solar energy during the day, so they technically get more generation without storage, but the net of the entire systems involved is A LOT lower than 50%.
Also, you've got things reversed. A solar grid gets more stability from nuclear. A nuclear grid gets less stability from solar/wind. Order of most intermitency to least would be solar ---> solar/nuclear -----> nuclear. It's an easy concept to see, nuclear has less variability and thus requires less variable load. A renewable/nuclear grid is better than a solely renewable grid, numerous studies state as much, and I've cited them in other threads. The amount of the grid that would need to be stored/variable loaded for an all nuclear grid is about 20% (As France, for example), for solar it's 50-70%. And, let's be clear, cheapest way to store stuff on the grid is hydro storage, which isn't tech dependent so there's no chance for decreased cost of it, and is, by itself, more expensive per kwh than even the most over-budget nuclear plant and is very geologically locked, which brings batteries as a solution, which are many MANY times more expensive than the most over budget nuclear power plant per kwh.
Also, you've got things reversed. A solar grid gets more stability from nuclear. A nuclear grid gets less stability from solar/wind. Order of most intermitency to least would be solar ---> solar/nuclear -----> nuclear. It's an easy concept to see, nuclear has less variability and thus requires less variable load. A renewable/nuclear grid is better than a solely renewable grid, numerous studies state as much, and I've cited them in other threads. The amount of the grid that would need to be stored/variable loaded for an all nuclear grid is about 20% (As France, for example), for solar it's 50-70%. And, let's be clear, cheapest way to store stuff on the grid is hydro storage, which isn't tech dependent so there's no chance for decreased cost of it, and is, by itself, more expensive per kwh than even the most over-budget nuclear plant and is very geologically locked, which brings batteries as a solution, which are many MANY times more expensive than the most over budget nuclear power plant per kwh.
Last edited:
Wind has about 1/2 half the output in Summer in Europe (and is more erratic, see France June 2019 where It had 1 day at full output and 29 of almost complete calm), while solar has 1/4 (south europe) to 1/8 (London). In theoretical terms, you need an equivalent Fossil fuel plant that works in the Winter for each solar projects. In practical terms, this (still) doesn't happen because numbers are low, but what is happening is that fossil get "costlier" because their capacity factors goes down and down since the law prioritize intermittent when it's available. Since coal isn't good as ramping down/up to fuel (which is dirt cheap) , it's closing down almost everywhere, and gas is taking its place.
Also, to make it clear what the German export/import situation is:
Now, why is it that Germany is the smallest importer of electricity to France and France is the biggest exporter of electricity to Germany? Because Germany needs France's nuclear power to stabilize their grid at night. Germany's solar grid is mostly an export electricity scheme that only works because there are countries on fossil fuels that are available to export to during the day. They can slap another 30% of solar and it would just be export fodder and they'd still need to import massively at night. If the countries they export to had solar/wind in large quantities, their grid wouldn't function and their own solar/wind share would drop massively. What they're effectively doing is just building solar/wind for other countries, not actually increasing domestic share of renewables.
A more recent, though less visual, figure:
I'm not denying that Germany is a net exporter, it is, but it's basically acting on a hybrid nuclear/solar grid to do so. ALSO, interesting figure fromt he same article
:
Now, why is it that Germany is the smallest importer of electricity to France and France is the biggest exporter of electricity to Germany? Because Germany needs France's nuclear power to stabilize their grid at night. Germany's solar grid is mostly an export electricity scheme that only works because there are countries on fossil fuels that are available to export to during the day. They can slap another 30% of solar and it would just be export fodder and they'd still need to import massively at night. If the countries they export to had solar/wind in large quantities, their grid wouldn't function and their own solar/wind share would drop massively. What they're effectively doing is just building solar/wind for other countries, not actually increasing domestic share of renewables.
A more recent, though less visual, figure:
That's a worldwide list. France is the biggest electricity importer in the WORLD.
I'm not denying that Germany is a net exporter, it is, but it's basically acting on a hybrid nuclear/solar grid to do so. ALSO, interesting figure fromt he same article
:
Last edited:
It is at 47.0% up until this point in 2019.
Could you link me to a source that shows Germany is exporting during the day and importing at throughs (= during the night?)?
That assumes that demand is also not variable. But it is.
Show me how you can fulfill the following demand with nuclear:
(you can't, unless you built crazy amounts of nuclear)
Good. Gas is an ~okayish way to reduce emissions (vs. coal) and increase renewables. Battery and other technologies will improve over time and ultimately render gas useless (well, power 2 gas will most likely be used in the future).
Btw. you don't need an equivalent fossil fuel plant in winter to replace solar because it so happens that there is more wind in winter than in summer and for PV it's just the other way around. These two complement each other pretty nicely, atleast in Central Europe.
Please define "almost complete calm" (related to the French wind output in June).
Of course that's the case. Where is the issue? Are countries with large amounts of renewables into issues, say their grid collapsing? The way I see it is that these issues are mitigated by cross-boarder imports/exports, intelligent grid management and more storage (in the future).
Nuclear can be varied by about 1% output per minute with Gray rods, for a minimum of 40% nominal output. See France generation charts for this for example.
Also, a 30% or so baseload help the grid no matter what, because your variable output require far, far less storage than otherwise. In fact, a grid with 20% nuclear , 10% hydro ( the current european grid is actually 18% nuclear and 8% hydro iirc) 60 Wind and 40 solar (we're overbuilding by 20% or so, and solar is supposed desertic quality) is "easily" doable by current storage technology costs with about 10h needed or so , plus some gas turbine backups in rare events. Remove that 20% baseload and suddendly we're talking about weeks of storage , which are not doable by any projected technology anytime soon, and no overbuild can cover that. Another possibility is massively overbuilding and then have processes than can be turned up and down quickly, aka demand follow instead of load follow, but then you're utilizing a LOT of land, since renewables are very low power dense. Desalinization could be one of those process ( and predictions put enormous demand for fresh water in the 2050).
Considering the variability in wind/solar depending on the month, that's incredibly misleading and not even accurate to Germany's own data for 2019:
Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts
Key facts on the status of Germany’s energy mix, as well as developments in energy and power production and usage since 1990 - charts and data links.
It does not assume constant demand. If you assumed constant demand then nuclear could easily replace 100% of the grid. There's this place called France that exists for reference. And, really, you wouldn't have to build that many nuclear power plants to replace the grid. Not to mention that nuclear is capable of variability based on seasonal demand, it's just not efficient at being a constant variable load. Solar/wind is literally roll a dice on any given day.
Power 2 Gas says hi.
All of this is assuming that grids stay the way they are btw. I.e. relatively limited amount of potential exports and imports between countries. What should happen though is that grids get connected much more heavily. E.g. Spain is currently producing more energy than it needs -> export to France which exports to other countries, which have a deficit. That way PV and wind get much less intermittent (i.e. it's incredibly unlikely that all of Europe will suddenly see ~0 wind.
Considering the variability in wind/solar depending on the month, that's incredibly misleading and not even accurate to Germany's own data for 2019:
The chart you posted is for the full year of 2018. It is also using gross production, instead of net, which imo is useless - i.e. wind and PV "only" need to cover net production, not gross (as their net is pretty much the same as their gross production).
Do you have an idea of the energy economics of P2G? Do you know why people are still talking about ammonia, hydrogen, and methane as carriers and no one has actually decided which path to go? I'm not gonna go down this hole again. I
For what it's worth, this is France, June 2019:
Solar is relatively constant (while obviously 0 at night, which can be "fixed" by 4h storage and which solar uneconomical *today* at 20 c/KWh but ideally good enough , and presumably by 2025 or so at grid parity ). But wind is the real issue here. France has 16 GW of wind installed (nominal). Between 7 and 8 June, the output for wind spiked at 10 GW (and nuclear went down accordingly, see also how nuclear is working at about 60-70% of nominal output because solar summer means they can lower nuclear output), and the rest of the month was around 3 GW, with spikes at 6 and days of 0. That high a variability would require an equivalent 10 GW power of batteries and weeks of energy storage. Or you could build 40 GW nominal + 4 hour of batteries to have an average of a 10 GW output (france is about 45 GW iirc, so with napkins math, would need 160 GW nominal wind). But then the economy of that is terrible, and you start to have location problems as wind is location dependent and it isn't actually infinite and has a very low energy density in fact (less than 10W/Sqm, sure you're not "using the land" for other things, but that land is effectively taken for wind energy purpose, aka u can't overbuild wind on top of already existing wind turbines).
Also, the "whole of europe not getting wind is unlikely" is unsubstantiated. Low pressure phenomenons are vast. You don't even need low pressure events to be continent wide, as southern europe wind potential is basically 0 in the grand scheme of things. EU wind ride on the northern sea region/scotland and off the coast of france to a lesser extent. The low pressure event just need to be in the northern sea and suddendly your energy output drop to 10-20% of nominal.
There is no great solar + wind spot like Western Australia or Morocco in Europe. You can see the wind charts:
Then we'll use net:
Wind+Solar 29%
Biomass 8.3%
Hydro: 3.2%
And the year over year increase in production?
For the 2019 figures it's impossible to get a good handle of where they'll end up by the end of the year since wind/solar are seasonal. In fact, Germany has had years where it had its share of wind/solar go down despite more installed capacity because of how variable it is.
I'm really not quite sure what exactly I see there for the wind generation, but it's certainly not 1 day of wind and 29 days of nothing. But yeah difficult to see what actually happened with this kind of source.
"...southern europe wind potential is basically 0 in the grand scheme of things."
What!? I suppose Spain is part of Southern Europe, isn't it? If so: Spain was able to cover 19% of its energy demand with wind in 2018:
... this is still 2018 data, which I never mentioned.
This is what you quoted from me:
"It is at 47.0% up until this point in 2019."
And you said that's not true and quoted a 2018 figure. Yes, 2018 wasn't almost 50%. I never claimed it was. I said 2019 up until this point is 47%!
And I said using 2019 is MISLEADING because solar/wind output varies seasonally, so the year would not turn out to be 50% additionally the reason I brought up a graph of the year over year increase is because, even if you double the amount added in 2018 2019 is not going to have 7% of the grid more in solar/wind, but who knows, solar/wind is so variable year to year that that could happen even with no added capacity. NOT TO MENTION, when people say solar/wind can only be 30-40% of the grid without exporting during the day and importing at night or energy storage they mean... Solar+wind. Not solar+wind+biomass+hydro.
So of the two sources i showed you, you ignore one, and dismiss the other with no apparent reason. Why are you even posting? It's pretty clear you're not interested in actually discussing.
Also, are you seriously quoting 2019 figures for renewables and using them as a projection for the whole year? Are you aware of the fact that the best months for solar are march-August? Seriously. I could show you a chart of October-December and say that solar is useless. How is this not garbage intellectual disonesthy? Just don't engage in conversations you are not interested in.
For an example of what Copper's talking about in regards to seasonality of solar:
I just showed you proof that wind has potential in Southern Europe, namely in Spain, yet I am the one not actually interested in discussing? I'm not dismissing your sources. I don't think they say what you think they say, though.
I'd actually be willing to take a bet that the end result for 2019 will be between 44-50% (net), i.e. very close to the percentage that we have right now. At the end of 2019 solar will be down relative to now while wind will be up relative to now.
Up until the end of August 2018, renewable share was ~41%. At the end of 2018 that figure was 40.7%. 2017: 37.9% and 38.3% respectively.
And please behave yourself a little bit. Choosing Jan til mid August is not the same as choosing October-December. Again, I'm willing to take a bit that the final percentage will be very close to the percentage right now (see above).
For an example of what Copper's talking about in regards to seasonality of solar:
I'm not only talking about solar, but about renewables overall! Again, solar will be down compared to now at the end of the year (relatively speaking), wind will be up (relatively speaking). This will ~average out (give or take).
Just btw. that chart is not applicable to Germany. Winter is much worse than what is shown here, while summer is better (relatively speaking; not sure what the units here mean and what "90% roof" means).
The chart was for consumer solar, but the variance is the same regardless of commercial/industrial solar, though it does depend on location. As for whether the share of energy will remain that high?
It wouldn't be because of newly installed capacity if it does end up being the case:
Either case, I zoom in on wind/solar because biofuel and hydro would be available in any system and constitute variable load and steady base load situations. Wind/solar, however, are a different beast with a different problem.
I have been starting to suspect this as well, for a while now actually. It's one of the reasons why I am seriously considering selling my house and moving further inland.
I truly couldn't be happier with my home. It's new (completed last year) and it has everything I could possibly want and I still feel like it's something I should get done within 4 years or so (selling).
I'm just deathly (and selfishly) afraid that more people will start to realize this is going to happen, which will cause values to tank (and my financial ruination by extension).
So why didn't I think of this before buying? For the simple reason that I've only recently started realizing how bad things are likely to get, and how quickly. I suspect that's also the reason why the Dutch government isn't openly discussing this yet. It'll tank the economy here.
Still it might not a bad thing that I bought the house. Crazily enough, prices have risen meteorically since we bought it...
OP
OP
OP
OP
Doing my little part today with the kids. Found these little trees (aren't they cute?) where they had no chance to survive / grow (border of the road or too close from other bigger trees). I will plant them in empty places in the little wood in my backyard.
OP
OP
🤦♂️🤦♀️
Any day now the government will allow lead to be added to gasoline again.
This topic reminds me so much of why Climate Change Politics are so much dick waving by first world countries.
Using electricity generated from coal in Poland doesn't make you "greener" because you yourself doesn't use coal. You're using coal as energy.
Same with electric cars. Just because the extremely pollutant materials/procedures to make a battery isn't done in your country doesn't make its less harmful. Electric cars are still much greener than gas cars just not as much if you bought a brand new electric car just to be green But countries don't car since statitistics wise they don't include the footprint of the making that car for the first country.
The goal of climate change should not be a national thing its an international thing. CO2 from machinery mining lithium in Chile is equally harmful to Europe. So much green initiatives are more transference of pollutant to poorer countries than actually decreasing pollution.
Using electricity generated from coal in Poland doesn't make you "greener" because you yourself doesn't use coal. You're using coal as energy.
Same with electric cars. Just because the extremely pollutant materials/procedures to make a battery isn't done in your country doesn't make its less harmful. Electric cars are still much greener than gas cars just not as much if you bought a brand new electric car just to be green But countries don't car since statitistics wise they don't include the footprint of the making that car for the first country.
The goal of climate change should not be a national thing its an international thing. CO2 from machinery mining lithium in Chile is equally harmful to Europe. So much green initiatives are more transference of pollutant to poorer countries than actually decreasing pollution.
OP
OP
Overall footprint of electric cars is still up for debate, but most recent studies include the footprint from the production of the car. Most agree that if you use clean energy to recharge, the overall footprint including production makes electric cars greener. As time goes by, electric cars advantage will only grow because the grid itself is being decarbonized, and battery production will get better and cleaner.
Anyone read this Rolling Stones article from last week? It's a fantastic engaging read I must say:
We are all in for a hell of a ride. And even still, apathy reigns supreme as climate genocide broils on.
We are all in for a hell of a ride. And even still, apathy reigns supreme as climate genocide broils on.
I believe humans can adapt and they will. Many will die, probably more will move, but I don't think we will be able to reverse the development anyway and need to cope.
People do adapt to more extreme conditions. Sure, the weaker will suffer, but it is our responsibility to act accordingly. Elderly people do die because they don't drink enough water, which can be fixed. Others die because they don't adapt and still overestimate their own fitness.
Mentioning these at all feels a little strange as the real casualties will be with poor that suffer from our lifestyle already. I just hope a change of concience to avoid the worst will also lead to less hardship for the weakest and poorest.
- Status