|
How are u posted:Is that Elon Musk's plan to save the world? That idea is literally the plot of Snowpiercer, and Elon seems like just the type to build a snowpiercer train. The only difference will be that his train will crash on its own.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Natural gas is, by far, worse than coal in terms of total greenhouse gas / global warming. Source? Everything on google even many climate change related groups open admit LNG is better than coal although the extraction methods (fracking) aren't at all positive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:lol so a decade of LNG A new power plant would take at least half a decade just to get built, probably closer to a decade. Investment, permitting, design, and construction are not fast processes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:A new power plant would take at least half a decade just to get built, probably closer to a decade. Investment, permitting, design, and construction are not fast processes. None of these are new power plants, it's the conversion of existing coal plants to LNG. It's a "thing" in the energy industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:None of these are new power plants, it's the conversion of existing coal plants to LNG. It's a "thing" in the energy industry. Right. Add "demolition" to the list of steps required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:lol so a decade of LNG I mean... not really, no. We have to cut all CO2 emissions in half by roughly 2030. Converting every single coal plant to an LNG plant wouldn't even cut our electricity-only emissions by half. Realistically, it wouldn't even get us halfway to that goal. And that's if we could convert every single one, we achieved an overall reduction of 50% vs. coal, there was absolutely no methane leakage, and 100% of additional capacity built during that time period is non-emitting. If we wanted to stay on track for 2C the majority of those converted plants would have to be shut down before 2030. Either that, or we'd have to stop driving ICE cars or something in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
All new fossil fuel plants are a dead end that delays us from implementing the infrastructure we should actually be focusing on. Also https://twitter.com/JanetShamlian/status/1107981036741451776 Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Just to add a few more points here: conversion isn't something that you can just do economically on any coal plant and there are specific reasons why it's a particularly bad option as a stopgap or least harm option. The most viable units for conversion are old as gently caress, low capacity units that are nearing retirement. These are coal plants that are almost universally being out-competed by everything and that would shut down soon. Many converted plants were already shut down. That means that when you do a conversion, you are taking an emissions source that was about to go away and replacing it with a new one. Newer coal units are drastically more efficient and the relative cost of conversion is much higher. In other words, the idea that we're just going to go and convert all of our coal generation into natural gas is kind of absurd because it's not even remotely economical to do so. You would basically have to force coal operators at gunpoint to do it on plants that are still profitable, and if you're doing that then you might as well force them to shutter the plant entirely and go renewable. Sorry for posting so much about this, but natural gas as a "solution" is just a huge pet peeve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
The amount of nukes needed to detonate in the sahara is so great, it would create a crack in the african tectonic plate. The crack will spread, splitting the african plate in two. It would change the geology in central and northern africa forever as places not normally known for earthquakes are introduced to their own ring of fire. The entire world will be hosed in the long term as africa changes shape completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
people just don't get the curve
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Sorry for posting so much about this, but natural gas as a "solution" is just a huge pet peeve. Then why are even climate groups not frowning upon such an option?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:The amount of nukes needed to detonate in the sahara is so great, it would create a crack in the african tectonic plate. The crack will spread, splitting the african plate in two. It would change the geology in central and northern africa forever as places not normally known for earthquakes are introduced to their own ring of fire. The entire world will be hosed in the long term as africa changes shape completely. Congrats on finding the one flaw in the plan
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Release the solar snakes, giant serpents we've kept chained underground to prevent the planet from overheating. too bad the immortal skeleton lawyer wizards won't allow it
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
There is no solution that does not also involve the radical reshaping of the world socioeconomic structure. That's the shorthand for most of the explanation above regarding why it won't happen. I have more words about it but you're not going to like them. Mostly about Lacan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Source? Everything on google even many climate change related groups open admit LNG is better than coal although the extraction methods (fracking) aren't at all positive. I posted a link on the issue of fracking gas leaks that basically says yes, it's as bad as coal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:A new power plant would take at least half a decade just to get built, probably closer to a decade. Investment, permitting, design, and construction are not fast processes. That's why we pick a design and get to work on hundreds asap. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
So by way of individual action (I know, pointless... but I wanna do *something* anyway)... I've been trying to limit my meat consumption. As a helluva animal protein cook it's been a bit rough - I've been doing beans and that's fine for some things like meatless tacos and chickpea dishes but I'm running out of ideas. Any good pointers for vegetarian cuisine stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Then why are even climate groups not frowning upon such an option? I have no idea, but nothing I'm saying is incorrect. If there's a specific point I'm making that you disagree with I can try to address it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Let's keep theorizing, Let's say the unspeakable happens. We get a progressive in the white house and congress gets a super majority of progressives. The New Green Deal passes. What would the world look like in a decade for the typical middle-class American?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Let's keep theorizing, The same, because American progressives are centrists and the NGD is a series of non-binding commitments that are inadequate even if they were implemented. And implementation would cause the pendulum to swerve hard right next go around anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The same, because American progressives are centrists and the NGD is a series of non-binding commitments that are inadequate even if they were implemented.  Folks like AOC, Bernie, Warren, etc. are anything but centrist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Let's keep theorizing, What is a "typical middle-class American"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's why we pick a design and get to work on hundreds asap. I suspect you're kidding, but in case you're as clueless as the person I was replying to ... that's not how it works. You can't just plunk a power plant down like in SimCity. Even if you somehow bought a plot of land the same size and shape in every location you got permitting to build on, the particulars (topography, protected natural features such as wetlands or endangered species habitats, NIMBY locals) will force changes to a "standard" design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
What middle class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:So by way of individual action (I know, pointless... but I wanna do *something* anyway)... I've been trying to limit my meat consumption. As a helluva animal protein cook it's been a bit rough - I've been doing beans and that's fine for some things like meatless tacos and chickpea dishes but I'm running out of ideas. Any good pointers for vegetarian cuisine stuff? Never been to Goons With Spoons before? There's a thread for that. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3729596
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I suspect you're kidding, but in case you're as clueless as the person I was replying to ... that's not how it works. You can't just plunk a power plant down like in SimCity. Even if you somehow bought a plot of land the same size and shape in every location you got permitting to build on, the particulars (topography, protected natural features such as wetlands or endangered species habitats, NIMBY locals) will force changes to a "standard" design. I oversimplified but mostly I wasn't. People are speculating about nuking deserts but building a bunch of reactors is unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:
Warren swings with the party's pendulum. AOC and Bernie have better positions, but are ultimately elected officials within a larger political apparatus, not tyrants. Also, the NGD rejects nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Warren swings with the party's pendulum. AOC and Bernie have better positions, but are ultimately elected officials within a larger political apparatus, not tyrants. Yeah it's pretty useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
The NGD is babbys first attempt at acknowledging the scale of systemic changes we require - which is certainly commendable, but it's ultimately nothing more than that. It'd be nice if that had been the state of the discourse 30 years ago, but it wasn't, and now here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
I never thought this thread would be more disappointing than those who believe climate change isn’t real or so selfish they don’t care about future generations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I never thought this thread would be more disappointing than those who believe climate change isn’t real or so selfish they don’t care about future generations. Actually the thread is pretty tame lately. However, given the nature of the topic, it's tough to have expectations in any direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:Actually the thread is pretty tame lately. However, given the nature of the topic, it's tough to have expectations in any direction. I essentially asked what’s the best worst-case scenario. I got back we’re just hosed and or semantical arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Here's your best worst case scenario.IPCC SR15 posted:Scenario 3 [one possible storyline among worst-case scenarios]:
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
edit: was about to quote the same thing, drat you. Yeah, take this ^ for concrete examples in a basic scenario.Tab8715 posted:I essentially asked what’s the best worst-case scenario. I got back we’re just hosed and or semantical arguments. Oh yeah I know, not saying you don't have a point and of course this very quickly turned into something else, that's quite normal. Thing is, to stay on topic and without going into criticism of any certain political direction, the essence of this is that the scenarios that are realistically expectable, even the optimistic ones, are very dire. This obviously tends to lead to, well, unproductive discussions or comments. If you haven't seen it yet, a few posts below the op it was I think, a very good quoted source about a realistic scenario on how the world looks like over the next few decades, based on what we can expect to happen, plus some leeway for unexpected stuff. This is a thing no matter if one big country changes their policy entirely, actually parts of it still would happen if we would go net-zero on CO2 emissions tomorrow, due to it being saved in the oceans, the atmosphere being already very dense with it and unexpected-one-could-have-thought-about-it factors that might crash this thing even faster. We're just hosed is polemic and not helpful, but the situation is dire, as we have to think very longterm to fix things and the next ten to twenty years will be the years that we experience the stuff our predecessors caused years ago. Some cities will sink into the ocean, terrible natural disasters will hit millions of people, climate refugees will become a huge thing and the middle-class white American will experience this in one way or another. Either if his or his friend's house needs to take a diving course, food prices go up or even political instability in the US or at least in countries somewhat connected to the US will surely happen to a certain degree. This goes either way, even if Trump would wake up tomorrow, super smart and competent, well-aware of the climate crisis and instantly enacting important and good political actions, because even if we act right now, we will have to face the consequences of our actions decades ago. Everything we can fix now will not counter the things our generation will experience, but it might have impact on stuff happening for the next generation and the one after that and since this entire train wreck needs a lot of time to actually do the wreck part, maybe (and that's a big maybe) we can endure this for generations to come. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it because lol gently caress those children and children's children, because that does not make this any better. Right now we might (!) be on the tipping point whether or not the "we are hosed" part comes into its full completion. Not in the next 10, but in the next 100 years. Likely even longer. Goons Are Gifts fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I essentially asked what’s the best worst-case scenario. I got back we’re just hosed and or semantical arguments. The thing is that you keep avoiding specific discussions to talk about generalities, and this thread has gone around in that circle a million times. I guess I'll bite anyway. If we're talking about truly good climate policy that is almost certainly out of the realm of possibility but not actually impossible, then it basically looks like a US that's on total war footing in terms of spending and pursuing massive public works projects starting no later than the very early 2020s. It looks like a foreign policy that's entirely focused on dragging the rest of the world along with us, because it's literally impossible for us to solve this problem alone. I don't know what that looks like for the average American. There's no feasible way to stop people from driving cars or to transition fully to EVs in the next ten years, so basically everything would need to be focused on completely eliminating emissions from the energy sector. You'd have to pair that with massive incentives to discourage commuting combined with very large-scale local construction efforts to make the country less car-centric within the next 20-30 years. You need to do everything possible to start getting ICE vehicles out of people's hands. Energy generation is the low hanging fruit, but transportation emissions have to follow close behind. Even if that's all done perfectly, it would be massively disruptive to a lot of industries, so you'd need huge government job and training programs that dwarf anything that existed during the New Deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
So have people here actively started preparing or what? And no I don't mean preparing for Mad Max, rather just preparing for food/water/electrical shortages....
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Here's your best worst case scenario. What’s the best best case scenario or where are all of these outcomes listed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
CODChimera posted:So have people here actively started preparing or what? And no I don't mean preparing for Mad Max, rather just preparing for food/water/electrical shortages.... i live in cali so i've had an earthquake kit set up for ~5 days with no power or water for a while. a kit like that isn't too hard to make, but you need storage space. i've looked into a lot of schemes for home power that don't include batteries because batteries aren't a good medium to long term energy storage solution. try buying enough batteries to power your home for 7 days, for example, and you'll find it's stupid bullshit. scale that to the size of the usa and there's just not enough raw materials for it, ignoring the cost. there's not much else, though. h-fuel cells and compressed air. maybe pumped storage for cities. in the end we'll alter our energy usage, regardless of if it's voluntary or due to the plant power plant overloading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The thing is that you keep avoiding specific discussions to talk about generalities, and this thread has gone around in that circle a million times. I guess I'll bite anyway. Not sure what you mean by generalities? I know I’ve missed a few replies (phone posting) I really do appreciate the responses to my questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
CODChimera posted:So have people here actively started preparing or what? And no I don't mean preparing for Mad Max, rather just preparing for food/water/electrical shortages.... Live in a place that’s least impacted by climate change with a government that’s actively preparing for a remarkably different future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 03:11
|
|