|
Narxysus posted:The idea that 'people will demand [insert any energy type here] cars' in a climate challenged world seems to me to be a highly spurious notion. People want cars because at the moment much of society has no other way to function. Even extensive development of public transportation would only help those who live in dense urban areas. For those who live in small towns or rural America, there simply isn't another option on the horizon.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:I'm of the opinion that regardless of the environmental consequences, nearly every barrel of economically-recoverable oil in the world will eventually be drilled, refined, and burned. Without some miracle tech that can let us live our current lifestyle without fossil fuels, people will simply not be willing to give it up. http://energyfromthorium.com/ http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html (ignore the bit about generating fuels, the rest is pretty good though nowhere near as good as the full explanation:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4 I'm very interested in talking to someone (anyone, in this thread or anywhere else) who can really make a good critique of the LFTR concept and design. At the moment all the evidence seems to point to it being an incredible technology which could save the world, but I am naturally sceptical. This is balanced of course by the fact that China's started investing in LFTR development. Seriously, anyone who can even just play devil's advocate on this subject, it would be really great, as I'm hoping to start giving talks about it around my uni in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:http://energyfromthorium.com/ Clearly this isn't a critique of LFTR per se, of which I know only as much as was in the links you posted, but it's worth bearing in mind that even with plentiful cheap electricity we use fossil fuels for enough other things for shortages to be a major concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Yep, the precious first world lifestyles of Australia, America and the like we're built on the assumption of indefinite cheap transportation. The long expanses of suburbia become much less sustainable once you remove that assumption. I love how people point to the electric car as a suitable foundation for sustainability when the very living pattern it enables -- not to mention the manufacture of the vehicle itself -- is an incredibly inefficient waste of resources. And then when I point to public transportation as a solution they tell me about this one time their friend smelled a fart on a bus and all public transportation is HORRIBLE ICKY AND STUPID.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:And then when I point to public transportation as a solution they tell me about this one time their friend smelled a fart on a bus and all public transportation is HORRIBLE ICKY AND STUPID.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:I love how people point to the electric car as a suitable foundation for sustainability when the very living pattern it enables -- not to mention the manufacture of the vehicle itself -- is an incredibly inefficient waste of resources. More trains and buses is a great idea, but there are many, many places where public transportation simply isn't practical. Like anywhere that isn't a major urban area. What would you suggest to those who live in towns of less than 50,000, or in rural areas far from any city? Complete replacement of personal vehicles is a pipedream unless literally everyone lives in a big city, which could never happen, because who'd run the farms, the ranches, the mines, the logging, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Start sharpening the spurs on your cowboy boots and making horseshoes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:More trains and buses is a great idea, but there are many, many places where public transportation simply isn't practical. Like anywhere that isn't a major urban area. What would you suggest to those who live in towns of less than 50,000, or in rural areas far from any city? Complete replacement of personal vehicles is a pipedream unless literally everyone lives in a big city, which could never happen, because who'd run the farms, the ranches, the mines, the logging, etc? This is true, but the balance is ridiculously in favour of private transport for every little thing, daily commutes, driving your dog to a park 5 minutes away, a trip to the local deli. If you remove the absolutely wasteful elements of the urban lifestyle you'll remove an awful lot of clutter on the roads. We've (my family) sold our car as we're about to move interstate. We intend to bike and bus, and fill any gaps in with car rental or taxi. I think this is the kind of thing that needs to be encouraged to properly scale down urban clutter. To boot, the trade vehicles that have no reasonable alternative will become more efficient, spending less time in traffic. Lots of ifs here, especially regarding getting the public on board, but realistically the world will NEED to move to this over this century, potentially sooner. What's the most gradual way to do so, that's non threatening to people who would just say your ruining their quality of life by suggesting they don't need a car. I do understand that due to the dreadful state of public transport in some areas, cars are not an option, but they're probably not needed more places than people care to acknowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:More trains and buses is a great idea, but there are many, many places where public transportation simply isn't practical. Like anywhere that isn't a major urban area. What would you suggest to those who live in towns of less than 50,000, or in rural areas far from any city? Complete replacement of personal vehicles is a pipedream unless literally everyone lives in a big city, which could never happen, because who'd run the farms, the ranches, the mines, the logging, etc? The majority of people won't need transport leave that town of 50,000, because they'll be spending their time in that community providing their skills and labour to help that community survive. Transport is an unnecessary activity if you consume the resource at its point of production. We'll be in a future where people will be trying a lot harder to produce their own resources, rather than ranging far and wide to find some, or supply their labour in trade for some. This is why I don't think cities are the way of the future - too many people sharing too little space that they all place demands on. Suburbs will be the places people live, as they are divided into small communities of people that choose to work together to build resilience into their lives. They won't be suburbs anymore, they will be clusters of people, but far from posessing the density of any city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 11:43
|
|
|
Narxysus posted:The majority of people won't need transport leave that town of 50,000, because they'll be spending their time in that community providing their skills and labour to help that community survive. I'd disagree this, but I think the relevant point is that there's reasonable disagreement on this. We don't know what the population distribution of the future will look like, so it's silly to take action on the assumption that X or Y will inevitably happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 12:50
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:http://energyfromthorium.com/ I shouldn't come back here 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:Like TACD above, I can't offer any criticism of LFTR directly due to lack of competence, but if the announced timetables for first reactors I've seen are correct (20ish years), then the waiting time would certainly be feasible with regards to transition preparation and possible peak oil, but to the best of my understanding the climate can't afford that long. Those are under current conditions, LFTR could happen much sooner if they became a priority. The old problem of scientifically possible, but politically untenable. Not likely to happen unless something big changes/people get over at least some of their fear of nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Sorensen is a great salesman, and in a lot of ways he's dead on. However, the impression I get from him and Flibe is the same as that great TED talk on the Pentagon's New Road Map by Barnes. Everyone seemed enamoured with a design for the military that would produce technically competent peacekeepers alongside a smaller but traditional unbeatable American army, until someone pointed out that it still suffers from some of the same terrible problems. As far as I can tell, LFTR has no problems that a traditional nuke doesn't, and is missing a lot that they are. It's going to be exceptionally expensive to build, though, and that's the difficulty right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Sorensen is a great salesman, and in a lot of ways he's dead on. However, the impression I get from him and Flibe is the same as that great TED talk on the Pentagon's New Road Map by Barnes. Everyone seemed enamoured with a design for the military that would produce technically competent peacekeepers alongside a smaller but traditional unbeatable American army, until someone pointed out that it still suffers from some of the same terrible problems. I don't want to derail (and I don't have PM) but what was the same terrible problems that exists with Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map? I'll just take a quick reply and let it drop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:I don't want to derail (and I don't have PM) but what was the same terrible problems that exists with Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map? I'll just take a quick reply and let it drop.  Seriously, I'm not a GiP kind of guy; I'm just comparing LFTR's success to the kind of cachet that Barnett got back when D&D was war-mongering.Another problem with LFTR: Sorensen uses the picture of thorium's cross-section to sell this point in the Thorium Remix, but I'm pretty sure he's showing the FLiBe cross-section. The problem is the use of Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I'd disagree this, but I think the relevant point is that there's reasonable disagreement on this. We don't know what the population distribution of the future will look like, so it's silly to take action on the assumption that X or Y will inevitably happen. Agreed, alternatively described with words about eggs, baskets etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:It's going to be exceptionally expensive to build, though, and that's the difficulty right now. I think you mean "develop" instead of "build" because a liquid salt reactor is missing several of the main expenses of traditional reactors, such as fuel fabrication and the massively voluminous containment buildings traditional reactors need. The big expense right now is developing liquid salt reactors to a point where they can be deployed. Kafka Esq. posted:The problem is the use of Liquid salt reactors will preferentially use Lithium-7 since neutron capture by Lithium-6 ends up creating Tritium, and dealing with another volatile compound in a reactor is not something they need. Luckily, it's easy to separate Li-6 and Li-7 by straight-up distillation of liquid metallic Lithium. Li-7 is 92% of all natural Lithium, so I don't know how we could not have much of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
I have a real problem with people asserting that "the science is settled" when it obviously isn't. Here is an example by a profesor at a prestigious University. Professor Neville Nicholls, cliamte researcher at Monash, 2008 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-extremes.pdf quote:General increases in rainfall intensity (McInnes et al., 2002; Whetton et al., 2002; Walsh et al., 2001; Abbs, 2004; Abbs et al., 2006) but with considerable spatial variation… Today http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/la-nina-brought-flooding-but-climate-change-not-off-the-hook-20120312-1uwdd.html#ixzz1owRN3UYJ quote:THE past two years have been Australia’s wettest two-year period since at least 1900… So in a couple of years he has gone from prediction drought as a result of climate change to increased rain and floods, and he's not the only one either. How can people talk of the science being settled when eminent scientists are undertaking massive reversals of predictions without acknowledging their errors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:I have a real problem with people asserting that "the science is settled" when it obviously isn't. Here is an example by a profesor at a prestigious University. Worse droughts in some areas of the country are not mutually exclusive with heavier rainfall in another, something he even recognizes in the second article: quote:And even if global warming is enhancing Australia's rainfall on average, we should not conclude that droughts are behind us. Australia's natural climate variations are so strong that we will certainly see long and painful droughts in the future, as well as wet periods. There is also concern that global warming will lead to increased droughts in specific areas such as the deep south of the continent. Besides, the heavier rainfall in recent years hasn't been caused by global warming: quote:Not surprisingly, people ask whether global warming caused the record rains and floods. The simple answer is ''no'' - the heavy rains and floods have been caused by back-to-back La Nina events. Additionally, when people say the science "has been settled" it is about global warming actually existing, not about the specifics of how it is going to impact the world. No one is saying that the science is settled and we know exactly what is going to happen and when, they are saying we know the global temperature trend is positive (though some areas will actually get colder as the global average goes up  ).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:I have a real problem with people asserting that "the science is settled" when it obviously isn't. Professor Neville Nicholls, cliamte researcher at Monash, 2008 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/science/weather-extremes.pdf quote:> General increases in rainfall intensity (McInnes et al., 2002; Whetton et al., 2002; Walsh et al., 2001; Abbs, 2004; Abbs et al., 2006) but with considerable spatial variation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
When people talk about "the science being settled" they talk about measurements like these. 1990 plant zone map http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Images/USZoneMap.jpg 2012 plant zone map http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Images/300dpi/All_states_halfzones_title_legend_logos_300dpi.jpg The average annual minimum temp for much of the midwest has warmed 5 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:My biggest fear is that if we do face mounting climatological shifts, that society and government as they are continue on without collapsing and having the opportunity to be rebuilt by people for whom "I loving TOLD YOU SO" doesn't quite soothe the rage. Any outcome that doesn't end up with civilization coming out unrecognizable on the other side is going to just put us right back where we are, or just result in the slow boiling off of humanity. Most of the people saying "I loving TOLD YOU SO" along with the current crop of climate deniers, and for most of us of age today will not be alive when society collapses due to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
karthun posted:When people talk about "the science being settled" they talk about measurements like these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Your 2012 map says it's the average over 1976-2005. First off its not my map, its the USDA's. Secondly what is your conclusion for the USDA using 30 years of data to make these maps? :edit: And the 1990 map was measurements from 1974-1986. karthun fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Mar 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Your 2012 map says it's the average over 1976-2005.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
karthun posted:First off its not my map, its the USDA's. Secondly what is your conclusion for the USDA using 30 years of data to make these maps?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:...well, mostly that it's not a comparison between 1990 and 2012, which was strongly implied by your post. Right it is not a comparison between 1990 and 2012. It is a comparison of a plant zone map from 1990 and a plant zone map from 2012.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
The science is settled on the fact hat climate change is indeed happening, obviously not on how exactly it's happening and what sort of changes the world will go through - nobody has ever claimed that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:The science is settled on the fact hat climate change is indeed happening, obviously not on how exactly it's happening and what sort of changes the world will go through - nobody has ever claimed that. The problem is that eminent scientists were telling us that “we would never have dam-filling rains again”, leading to the building of wasteful desalinization plants while we suffer through some of the wettest weather on record. It's a "boy who cried wolf" type thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:The problem is that eminent scientists were telling us that “we would never have dam-filling rains again”, leading to the building of wasteful desalinization plants while we suffer through some of the wettest weather on record. Climate and weather aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Climate and weather aren't the same thing. I know right! Which is why it was reckless of climate scientists to use our (temporary) drought to make dire predictions about our cities running out of water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:I know right! Which is why it was reckless of climate scientists to use our (temporary) drought to make dire predictions about our cities running out of water. Which predictions had Australia's major cities running out of water in 2012? Who is "climate scientists"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer is IWC and is trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Which predictions had Australia's major cities running out of water in 2012? Who is "climate scientists"? Professor Tim Flannery is our government hired "Climate Commissioner" and Australian of the Year winner. http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm quote:We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation. http://www.earthfrenzyradio.net/2007/05/as-drought-worsens-australian-cattle.html quote:Brisbane and Adelaide – home to a combined total of three million people – could run out of water by year’s end; Last summer Brisbane suffered a devastating flood, so completely wrong there. http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm quote:Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain … Wrong, wrong, wrong, and scaremongering at it's worst. The Dams refilled and are now at record levels. http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/regions-of-australia-hit-with-record-rainfall/ quote:Regions of Australia have been hit with the heaviest rainfall seen in 80 years. Sydney’s Warragamba Dam had reached 93 per cent capacity and was expected to spill for the first time in 14 years between 8pm and 10pm last night, flooding the Murrumbidgee, Hawkesbury and Nepean rivers. A deluge in Central Australia made a string of roads impassable, with the wet weather expected to continue until tomorrow. Some areas in Central Australia had had more than 100mm of rain in the past two days. The point is that these predictions aroused a lot of unjustified fear in the community and resulted in wasteful, unnecessary spending on things like Desalinization plants. He is a big public figure in this country and his panicked predictions have discredited climate change advocacy for a lot of people. These public figures should be more careful and circumspect in what they say rather than jumping to worse-case scenarios based on obviously flawed models and premises. Pipe Dreamer fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
The problem is from the skeptics side, they'll use any admission of uncertainty of the EFFECTS of climate change as a drum beat for doing nothing about it. Of course, as you've stated before nothing may be better than a multi million dollar desal plant, but like it or not this is where the debate has gone to, climate change advocates needing to take very firm positions in order to bring about action in a timely fashion. Of course this means the debate is missing the whole point. Climate change is disturbance of a system we do not fully understand, and is the platform for survival of pretty much everything we depend for our own survival. By the time climate scientists will be able to truly confidently say what will happen to the world, we're pretty screwed. This puts climate change advocacy in a pretty rough spot, seeing as essentially what is required to limit climate change is sacrifice. Taxes, budgeting to research and development of alternative energy, or cleaning up of current energy, sacrifice of lifestyle, scaling back or taxation of capital enterprises. All of it flies in the face of how the first world is wired to operate. How do you convince the world that climate change is a serious problem, great enough to be prioritised over the things I've mentioned above, WITHOUT the concrete assertions of consequences?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
teejayh posted:Most of the people saying "I loving TOLD YOU SO" along with the current crop of climate deniers, and for most of us of age today will not be alive when society collapses due to climate change. Yeah, and the ones who lived long enough to see the slow death of planetary climate stability are going to be pretty pissed. I wouldn't say "Law Abiding Citizen" pissed, but probably "John Q" pissed at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
karthun posted:Pipe Dreamer is IWC and is trolling. What is IWC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Listerine posted:What is IWC? http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=2342 I don't really see how he's "trolling" though. He actually did post sources to his argument (Tim Flannery's comments from 2007) and as someone who's pretty interested in this stuff it is disheartening to see someone who many consider to be a voice of reason making the types of predictions he is in the news. It's not that I disagree with his assertions in a less definite sense, but when you start saying "within 6 months" or "by next year" you're opening up a whole new can of worms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer has a point. Flannery has zero qualifications in anything to do with the climate. He's paid by the federal government to go around telling us we are doomed, and every single one of his predictions has failed to come to pass, but to be fair, he's not exactly alone in that regard. For example, he claimed melting ice sheets would soon have Australian cities under water while at the same time buying himself some lovely waterside property. He's also invested a ton of cash into a geothermal company, which last I heard is not working out too well. The government needs him to keep spreading the faith so they can justify their ridiculous carbon tax. Carbons are very evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Fat Jesus posted:Pipe Dreamer has a point. Flannery has zero qualifications in anything to do with the climate. He's paid by the federal government to go around telling us we are doomed, and every single one of his predictions has failed to come to pass, but to be fair, he's not exactly alone in that regard. For example, he claimed melting ice sheets would soon have Australian cities under water while at the same time buying himself some lovely waterside property. He's also invested a ton of cash into a geothermal company, which last I heard is not working out too well. Therefore the entire idea of global warming and climate disaster are bunk? Welp, guess I'd better wrap it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 22:57
|
|