kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

Oh no, I don't mean localized as in isolated from the others, just in terms of fuel logistics.

It makes perfect sense to transport 5 tons of uranium over 7000 km once per year as its environmental impact is nominal and offset by the energy production.

In case of continuously moving thousands of tons of wood over the same distance the environmental impact likely exceeds any benefit.

@Wetrix Yes they were beaten with police batons. Both were OK afterwards though and quite active in civil society in Ukraine after Euromaidan.

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

On the other hand moving wood from Africa on ships (=diesel) to be burned in highly populated EU sounds silly.

If you're living in a highly populated areas with little potential for anything else, just stick to energy sources with high power density.

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

Basically, from my perspective all energy policy should be highly localised.

If you have vast areas of forest, use wood locally. If you have geothermal (Iceland), valleys that can be flooded with dams (Sweden) or shallow water around your coast with strong winds (UK), make maximum feasible use of these.

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

Absolutely yes, although the reason why it's being logged is primarily because it's already there. Russian economy is largely extractive (~60%) and I don't think anyone is willing to make any significant investments there as long as there's more forest to be logged.

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

There are very fast growing tree varieties, including those created using bioengineering, that could be much effective in this if they were grown close to the power plants I guess.

@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org

This is a valid point. What intuitively feels stupid here is moving this wood over tens of thousands of kilometers, usually with fossil fuels, which might kill any net gain from CO2 point of view.

Also logging in places like Sibera is counterproductive, as it takes a hundred of years for a forest to grow in low temperatures there.

@themactep@fosstodon.org

It is. There was a lot of talk about illegal logging in Siberia 1-2 years ago, most of that ends in EU as "biomass" or "wood chips" but in reality it was normal, healthy forest

2021

"remote code execution (...) because sprintf is used unsafely"

😩

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-3177

#python #security

Reality of #biomass which makes significant part of EU "renewable" energy is that it's a forest logged in Africa or Siberia and transported over thousands of kilometers.

"Plans for burning Namibian wood in German power plants denounced"

https://www.robinwood.de/pressemitteilungen/plans-burning-namibian-wood-german-power-plants-denounced

An idea for Poland, who is at the verge of making its abortion law more restrictive: take example of Iowa 🇺🇸 (bill HF 515), proactively detect all women seeking abortion online using search engine surveillance and talk them out of it!

@Danbert8

What I assume federal grid operators are doing is balancing supply and demand on the scale of the whole country and with international connectors, for the sake of long-term resilience.

If you are a state strong on the supply side, you may feel you are making less profits than you could, because the regulator is capping your output to balance supply with others.

Now, you *are* making less profit locally, but you are buying resilience for it.

@Danbert8

100% agree and this is pragmatic approach, because public and private sector are just economic instruments with different characteristics, such as risk aversion, for-profit orientation etc. A mixed approach like NASA... just works.

@Danbert8

> connect their grid to their neighbors while allowing them to use their own regulations

Yes, and allow me ride public transport while allowing me to apply my own tariffs, right?

The whole concept of "common good" assumes that *sometimes* is makes sense to make loss financially in order for *everyone else* to benefit, but that includes yourself too. We pay taxes for public education and healthcare (well, not in US) because everyone benefits from that directly or indirectly.

@Danbert8

From libertarian point of view NASA is socialism, isn't it? 🤔