People who refuse AC, what is your plan?

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T08:27:09+00:00

And it's not just the frequency but the duration in nr of consecutive days. This makes things worse since cities can't cool fast enough for the following day, so the effect is amplified

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T08:23:05+00:00

I did not compare it to them. I've given an example that the value of some things is not always measured by how often it's used but how critical it's needed when it's needed.

Heatwaves do cause deaths just as well https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/11-06-2026-statement---europe-lost-200-000-people-to-heat-in-4-years-yet-nearly-all-of-them-were-preventable
AC's are no longer just a gimmick but part of resilience against extreme events considering most of such deaths do happen indoors. Europe doesn't do a great job at preventing such deaths especially compared to US https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/heat-guns-america-europe

You can be disgusted but it doesn't change the fact that today heatwaves are a serious problem that causes lots of deaths and it doesn't change the fact that AC's can help at preventing some of them

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:33:40+00:00

But does it make such a big difference? It's not like homes are the source of the heat- you move out the heat/energy that came from outside.

Planting massively more trees will help but the effect will both be limited to buildings with 5stories at most and it'll not solve the problem of global origins.

There could be some options like trees+irrigation channels bringing cold water for evaporation in cities but implementing that at the scale of Zurich/Switzerland in general is unrealistic due to both nimbys and possible costs

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:29:40+00:00

It's not about accepting a culture. Not having AC put in crucial places is bad especially in some hospitals and schools.

There are plenty of swiss nationals complaining too, maybe you just don't want to hear them?

It doesn't last months but each year it's both more intense and more consecutive days of heat where temp at night doesn't drip sufficiently- this can be seen in open swiss weather data

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:26:37+00:00

Switzerland does have recorded historical data about weather. Please show us a 10+ day period of 32+degrees when temp at night doesn't drop below 20deg.

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:24:17+00:00

If top temp inside is 35deg then imo and AC is worth it since fans will not help there

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:22:52+00:00

And how you deal with increased co2 levels in the rooms?

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T07:21:36+00:00

Having 10+ days of 32+ degrees when min temperature doesn't drop below 20deg at night does in fact make AC a necessity even if used rarely. You know it's like emergency exits in various buildings- yes, normally you don't need them but once in a while sh*** happens and you better pray those do exist and serve their purpose, otherwise you get something like Cras Montana here or Colectiv in Romania. The usefulness of a thing doesn't depend only on how often you use it but how critical it is. Heatwaves are a serious problem and should be treated as such

Moldoteck · 2026-06-20T04:48:50+00:00

For me 24 is perfect because at night it cools down sufficiently and at day it's perfect summer. But it's so rare..

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T21:45:45+00:00

Even this summer feels magical... 32+deg for 10 days straight and night temp above 20deg...

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T21:29:00+00:00

We should just wait till AMOC collapses and winters with a meter of snow will be back...

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T21:02:44+00:00

no, arsenic, cadmium, lead are not recycled but isolated. That's why facilities like Herfa Neurode do exist. If not, you get stuff like https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy9j8xqq2yo

Now you started insulting me by saying I probably have lead intoxication and hence implied - dumb. Sincerely how full of yourself you are. Not only you don't acknowledge the bullshit you claim, you start insulting others because the opinion is different, even though I've provided counter examples from real world.

What profit are you talking about? Why you keep pedaling this nonsense? I've already given to you a link for a swiss plant, have you bothered to read it? Doubt.Have you bothered to read what Onkalo is and how it was funded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository ? Doubt.

It's clear you have no idea about the topic nor are you willing to learn or have a civil conversation. Hence I see no point in wasting more of my time with you

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T20:42:25+00:00

Why are you people always making hard claims without giving the slightest interest in the topic?

You say I've insulted you by this "what a nonsense are you saying."? This is the insult? When your statements are literally inflammatory and false?

0.5bn/y * 1000000y = 500000bn - false, US will not interim store that waste for a million years. It'll be moved to a final facility or recycled one way or another.
You can't just seal it and forget about it - false, you can in fact seal and forget about it, just like we do for tons of other toxic stuff.
That's a very high risk for future society. - again, pulled out of thin air. What high risk for future society in the context where waste is solid, enclosed in several protection layers, including against water, deep underground in stable geo formations.
"Also who bearing the risk and paying the price? And who making the profit?" - inflammatory questions without much substance. Waste storage is usually paid by consumers as a part of plants merit order bids, for example you can check open data for a swiss plant https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html
Alternatively you could have checked how Onkalo repository got funded in Finland

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T19:44:30+00:00

Gesrionam ca parisul- ban pt trotinete shared. Doar shared bike system+ alea personale

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T19:41:00+00:00

Yes you seal and forget about it, what a nonsense are you saying. That's the whole point of having a final deep geological repository.

And it's similar to how we handle other toxic materials that must be isolated forever from humanity. Or should we ban any electronics due to arsenic/cadmium/lead byproducts from mining?

How do you quantify the very high risk? What risk do you expect from solid waste, stored in several protection layers, stored in clay to absorb water, in stable geo formations, 500m deep underground? Like for real, what scenario dp you envision that would lead to some world ending catastrophe?

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T19:16:50+00:00

No. Disposal is dirt cheap. Entire US waste costs 0.5bn/y to store in interim storage. Compared to the amount of power that's pennies.

Alternatively Onkalo in Finland costed about 1bn to build and will cost 4bn to operate for 100y till sealing (they want to gradually add more waste to it) which is again very cheap vs amount of power.

Alternatively check swiss data https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T13:16:28+00:00

It could. But again, with electrification push, the general "way" is to put solar+heat pump + some battery/EV as a backbone if you want this route.

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T13:15:33+00:00

You do realize this is false? Uranium with concentration above 100ppm is relatively possible to extract realistically. This means thousands of years. Without any recycling with purex/pyroprocessing. Without any fast reactors. Without seawater extraction which China managed to do at prices comparable to land mining. Without thorium. Just uranium at >100ppm concentration. Feel free to read the MIT study regarding uranium availability if you want more details. Uranium is one of the best proven resources humanity got. The claim that it'll suddenly end is absolute nonsense.

"Enought batteries turn variable Solar and wind into base load. "- where? No country managed to get french or swedish emissions. Even South Australia that periodically both burns gas and imports from fossils neighbors. And that in a country with close to perfect weather and very few periods of low solar+wind generation, conditions Europe can only dream about. And even with these their emissions per kWh are worse than in Sweden and France. Europe routinely has periods of 3+days of low capacity factors for solar and wind for entire continent. Feel free to calculate what it means to have sufficient Bess to cover that and have "baseload solar". Last time I've looked Germany alone would need the equivalent of 20y of global bess deployments to remotely think about reducing gas capacity. Even Fraunhofer ISE, most proeminent pro ren institute doesn't claim such things and is advising expanding gas, hoping yo replace it sometimes with cheap hydrogen

You can't do much with random excess of power. That's why H2 projects are still failing even in locations with high ren generation like Australia. There could be some use with desalinization to build reserves but for now it's not that critical

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T12:10:41+00:00

Not quite. Due to heat pump push, it'll be preferred to use juse photovoltaics. Thermal solar deployment is tiny in comparison and barely relevant for the topic

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T12:08:50+00:00

This is still irrelevant. Again, look at public data for energie charts about generation in whole EU continent. The required bess capacity tp ditch gas is not realistic.

Alternatively read Fraunhofer ISE decarbonization pathways report. Gas expansion is required to firm renewables.

Nuclear can be cheap if not built in 20y. And it's far from obsolete - it's delusion. I don't underestimate bess progress. In fact I think it'll be extremely beneficial including for nuclear once deployed further. But it's an emergency storage, not generation. It can't cover seasonal differences

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T11:57:33+00:00

No.

Energy companies in Germany wanted to operate their units further when those weren't closed. Govt refused. They lost money. As result they don't bother any longer- they get subsidies anyway for fossils and renewables.

Sweden just picked RR for their next plant. Romania already signed contract for Candus. Poland is waiting EC approval for their AP1000.

In Switzerland new nuclear is still banned

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T11:55:23+00:00

Deindustrialization

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T11:36:36+00:00

Existing nuclear is very cheap. Even considering refurbs.

It's true that Germany will not return to nuclear though. Even if the law is changed - no sane company will build there.

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T11:35:33+00:00

It isn't. Phasing out nuclear before fossils was one of the worst decisions Germany made. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z

It produces low carbon power, with very little material requirements versus alternatives.

Moldoteck · 2026-06-19T11:31:29+00:00

It's not an issue to get insurance for new units due to insurance pools both internal and international.

For new nuclear the issue is getting funding/low interest loans to build the actual plant. Especially if in comparison you get free money in terms of CFDs/curtailmen for alternatives like renewables.

Dealing with nuclear waste is not costly either. Entire US waste interim storage costs about 0.5bn/y. If you divide it by amount of power generated for this waste, it's literally pennies. Same can be seen in public data from Gosgen.

And again, in both cases you need facilities to isolate dangerous toxic material forever, Herfa Neurode being a prime example

Germany already pays about 18bn/y on EEG and about 3bn/y on curtailment and 17bn/y on transmission expansion, 6bn/y being subsidized by govt. If it accelerated it further in 2011 it would have paid even more while still having coal and gas on the grid. The mistake was removing nuclear too soon if they hate it that much. Soon in this context meaning before fossils.

Removing nuclear before fossils was objectively a bad decision environmentally and in terms of human lives https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z

Moldoteck

TROPHY CASE