that makes sense, yeah

There’s one more outlier though which is Electrochemical cell, like galvanic element or voltaic pile

It was used around 1800 as a major electricity source, but I guess it quickly became uneconomical in 1866 or sth when the dynamo was invented.

Edit: wait yes, it actually says this in the second paragraph of the linked article:

The entire 19th-century electrical industry was powered by batteries related to Volta’s (e.g. the Daniell cell and Grove cell) until the advent of the dynamo (the electrical generator) in the 1870s.

So, I don’t know why you’re taking a stand for Uranium today. It used to be a good technology 30 years ago, but today it just doesn’t make any sense anymore.

First factor is cost. Renewables (Solar + Wind especially) have really really gone down in cost (see this link and this link), and the population will favor the energy source that is cheaper in the long run.

Secondly, the environmental impact of solar is really not that big. When we talk about how much CO2 solar produces, it’s mostly because that solar needs silicon and that needs energy to be purified. And that energy mostly comes from coal, gas or other non-renewables today. But guess what, as the solar revolution progresses, that emission goes down as well, so solar actually becomes more environmentally friendly over time.

tbf, we have airplanes, but most goods are still being transported over lands or seas.

Well but they’re not around anymore because the uranium inside them is all consumed by now, right?

I imagine the reason why comments here are more constructive is because Lemmy is perceived to have a high technicality-threshhold (you have to be somewhat familiar with technology to make an account here - even though that’s not true). That leads to only people with a high enough motivation to sign up here.

I think it’s important that we grow and find new users, not because I seek growth, but because I seek diversity. We need more people, more opinions, and more different perspectives.

Yeah the politics is annoying at this point, it feels like 60% on the front page is politics. I’m glad when the US votes are finally over.

Yeah, I have made the experience that most communities on the german-speaking feddit.de were great, but after that had technical issues and went down for 4 months (!), the content isn’t as good anymore and the users are more frustrating.

I guess crime exists due to two reasons:

• poverty exists. as long as poverty exists, people seek a way out.
• organized crime exists. it draws people in.

So, pacifying the country needs a two-sided approach. On the one side, you must show people how to live a good life without being reliant on crime for basic necessities. People must be able to support themselves without falling back on criminal organizations.

On the other hand, probably the bigger issue, is that these crime organizations have a lot of money, and demand for labour-force. that means that they actively recruit new people, and draw people in. organized crime mostly exists because there’s too much money being made on the black market by selling/trafficking drugs. So I guess that it would make sense to legalize drugs (at least to a certain extent), because every $1 spent legally when buying drugs is a $1 you take away from the black market, and therefore crime organizations.

without watching the video - google search is falling apart because there’s a lot of shit content, a lot of bad articles being written.

and there’s a lot of bad articles being written because there’s a lot of authors that just want to make money from advertising, without actually caring about the content. in other words, it’s advertising’s fault that the quality of content is dropping. and ironically, it’s mostly google’s fault that advertisement on the internet got so big as it is today.

we live in very special times. take a step back and appreciate how transformative the recent years are.

for a billion years, life existed on earth. in the last 200 years, we invented electricity, electric cars and transistors.

it’s me me meee right?

Right now I can think of the buddhist “tale of the bug”.

Two (human) friends died and were reborn. One in heaven, the other as a dung beetle (a type of bug) on a dung pile.

The guy in heaven tried to “help” his friend by going down to Earth and carrying his friend to the skies. But his friend refused, because the dung pile was now his home, and he didn’t want to leave at any cost. Only then the guy realized that it is not heaven that makes you happy, but finding the place that you’re destined for.

IMO Debian is already pretty far middle-ground. The packages are new enough for my personal usage.

Yeah i basically just wanted to tell you that there’s actual data on stuff and if you wanna know, you gotta read it all, there’s a lot. I don’t know what it would help you and ask a question such as “is there a name for the time when we started to burn oil?” because if i give you an answer, what do you do with that answer? if you can’t embed it into a broader context, that answer seems pretty useless to me. So if you actually wanna know, maybe start reading it all. idk. maybe i come off arrogant, but that’s not my intention. i just don’t understand what your motivation for asking this question is?

I think I just had a lot of talks about this with someone recently. Feel free to DM me if you wanna know more.

Yes, you’re right; The sources of energy have a society-defining role.

There’s two major sources: carbon-based (coal, oil, gas, biomass) and electricity.

Right now, we consume approximately 50% of either, but this is about to change. I predict that solar power will shift energy consumption to nearly 100% electrical in a few years.

I don’t really know about a specific name for when we started burning oil, but you might wanna look at Peak Oil Theory because it explains the mass of oil consumption over time as a bell curve.

They mean inverting the flow of logic, not looking at consequences but at causes, i guess.

Source

No, I think, they both (burgersc12 and OP) have an important point.

We can think of technology in two different ways: input and output; i.e. what do we put into the machine (source of energy) and what do we get out (factory products). They’re just looking at it from two different angles: OP is asking about power source, but burgersc12 is talking about factory outputs.

what keeps the water going while it makes its journey from the Alps to the sea?