|
Technical, yes, but the political challenges become less as time goes on. In another 20 years, not even oil executives will be able to convincingly say "I won't have to deal with this".
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
The New Black posted:Some further points on the sulfate aerosol idea I agree with all these points. It's at least a decade of serious study and politicking away from being seriously considered for implementation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Technical, yes, but the political challenges become less as time goes on. In another 20 years, not even oil executives will be able to convincingly say "I won't have to deal with this". They'll be able to say whatever they like from their gated communities patrolled by mercenaries. And if things are so bad that crops are failing, water is scarce, major cities are flooding, you'll have a ton of domestic and global turmoil. Unless the political situation starts to change and keep ahead of all this, actually making serious and collaborative efforts to deal with things before they happen, I don't see the challenges becoming less. People aren't suddenly going to get all reasonable when it all goes to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Technical, yes, but the political challenges become less as time goes on. In another 20 years, not even oil executives will be able to convincingly say "I won't have to deal with this". We're already seeing huge problems for humans and ecosystems and species caused by climate change. Who says we have 20 years? Why should we wait around for oil companies to stop bribing politicians, instead of nationalizing them and using some of the proceeds to develop clean energy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:We're already seeing huge problems for humans and ecosystems and species caused by climate change. Who says we have 20 years? Why should we wait around for oil companies to stop bribing politicians, instead of nationalizing them and using some of the proceeds to develop clean energy? Well, that would fall under the heading of "political challenge," wouldn't it? I'm not saying it's a grand idea to wait, I'm just saying that as the pace of catastrophes accelerate, the difficulty of the political hurdles will fall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
I want to know about the potential for nuclear energy to mitigate global warming disaster. I am approaching this issue as a scientist (neither nuclear nor climate specialised) and find the media entirely untrustworthy on this issue. I want informed, referenced, non-loving-newsmedia sources on the potential of nuclear power to avert catastrophic global warming. Particularly interested in calculations of carbon emission relating to mining and transporting nuclear fuel compared to comparable costs in other energy industries i.e. mining and transporting coal / industrial carbon costs of modern solar. This information is for a more important cause than my own personal peace of mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:We're already seeing huge problems for humans and ecosystems and species caused by climate change. Who says we have 20 years? Why should we wait around for oil companies to stop bribing politicians, instead of nationalizing them and using some of the proceeds to develop clean energy? Because even without oil companies we still have greens and progressives who are insanely anti nuke. We need nuclear power to keep our modern quality of life if we are moving past oil. As long as the people bitching about global warming are not tarring and feathering and helping crush the anti nuke greens and progressives there is no solution. Once they do that then we can talk about the oil companies influence. Till then, let it all burn!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Because even without oil companies we still have greens and progressives who are insanely anti nuke. We need nuclear power to keep our modern quality of life if we are moving past oil. As long as the people bitching about global warming are not tarring and feathering and helping crush the anti nuke greens and progressives there is no solution. Once they do that then we can talk about the oil companies influence. Till then, let it all burn! What are you talking about? Sure, nuclear power is likely to be an important part of any post-fossil fuel energy mix, but how does it follow that we can't address oil influence until we've silenced the anti-nuke people? Anyway, there are significant problems with nuclear energy as it stands - third generation plants produce a lot of waste and use a lot of uranium, and fourth generation plants which can use nuclear waste to generate electricity aren't expected to be on a commercial footing until 2030. Both are/will be very expensive. If you really want to encourage the development of improved nuclear power capacity try imposing big emissions cuts and see how the investment shifts. e: Also, who said anything about keeping our modern quality of life? I'm no primitivist, but at some point I think it will be easier to let go of some things than continue to provide the energy to fuel them. The New Black fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:So there are a lot of unsolved problems with a new technology - this is par for the course. The timeframe for deploying these kind of technologies is 20+ years away, when serious effects of ACC are starting to be felt, there is plenty of time to work this stuff out. The two objections Tanreall raises are both addressed in the paper. Where? I don't see them addressing either problem. I would also enjoy seeing how they'll cool the planet with a fraction of what Mount Pinatubo put out. quote:the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
The New Black posted:-Any project like this would require global co-operation of a kind probably never seen before From what Gwynne Dyer said when he came to speak at my university, it's supposedly relatively cheap to seed sulfates - in his words, "Bangladesh could do it." I'm not sure of the veracity of this, but I think it's becoming more feasible that a single medium-or-large size country with a decent budget could pull it off unilaterally, which is why I think some kind of international agency is desperately needed. My current biggest concern with sulfate seeding is a handful of reports that mention the possibility of major disruption of the Asia-Australia monsoon with sufficient seeding, which has the potential to devastate agriculture in the region. It really highlights the need for a lot of serious research (and a truckload of backup plans for the worst case scenario of some kind of backlash) before any sort of geoengineering scheme is given serious credence. I do think it's worthwhile to investigate some kind of limited intervention to prevent arctic thawing (if this is at all possible), if only because the potential for methane clathrates to cause a feedback loop is still one of the big unknowns. Vermain fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Fagtastic posted:I want to know about the potential for nuclear energy to mitigate global warming disaster. I am approaching this issue as a scientist (neither nuclear nor climate specialised) and find the media entirely untrustworthy on this issue. I want informed, referenced, non-loving-newsmedia sources on the potential of nuclear power to avert catastrophic global warming. Particularly interested in calculations of carbon emission relating to mining and transporting nuclear fuel compared to comparable costs in other energy industries i.e. mining and transporting coal / industrial carbon costs of modern solar. This information is for a more important cause than my own personal peace of mind. There are several good articles on nuclear energy here: http://www.theoildrum.com/search/apachesolr_search/nuclear Which all have sources and are generally written by professional scientists or engineers. You could start with this article for a broad overview. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Right, I'm just going to ask and then I'll be back to my other endeavours, but with all this CO2 talk I've been seeing, have you guys discussed the impact by farming vis-a-vis methane on the atmosphere? Is that even still a thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Right, I'm just going to ask and then I'll be back to my other endeavours, but with all this CO2 talk I've been seeing, have you guys discussed the impact by farming vis-a-vis methane on the atmosphere?  CH4 = Methane It's taken from http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/GHG_Forcing/. It has an effect but carbon dioxide is far and away the leading cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
I shared this about a month ago, but here's an overview talk about geoengineering by Phil Rasch, the Chief Scientist for Climate Science at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I thought it was pretty neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coa3VFcMCIA
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Is there any man made way we can just literally suck the carbon out of the atmosphere?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
There are materials that suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and release it when wet. I saw this in a BBC documentary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Is there any man made way we can just literally suck the carbon out of the atmosphere? Apparently we can place these things in the ground that suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and at the same time oxygenate the atmosphere, and they even grow larger and provide habitats for things when they do!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Well I meant machine wise, since the current fervour is to kill all trees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Apparently we can place these things in the ground that suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and at the same time oxygenate the atmosphere, and they even grow larger and provide habitats for things when they do!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:Yeah, it gets put under the heading of direct air carbon capture. You also end up with the issue: where do you store the hundreds and thousands of tons of CO2 and make sure it doesn't get accidentally re-released? Hence why it's seen as simpler and more cost-efficient to just reduce greenhouse gas emission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Fagtastic posted:I want to know about the potential for nuclear energy to mitigate global warming disaster. I am approaching this issue as a scientist (neither nuclear nor climate specialised) and find the media entirely untrustworthy on this issue. I want informed, referenced, non-loving-newsmedia sources on the potential of nuclear power to avert catastrophic global warming. Particularly interested in calculations of carbon emission relating to mining and transporting nuclear fuel compared to comparable costs in other energy industries i.e. mining and transporting coal / industrial carbon costs of modern solar. This information is for a more important cause than my own personal peace of mind. One thing that's a useful reference for this line of questioning is Without Hot Air, which has excellent analysis of various ways (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.) to stop carbon emissions. The nuclear analysis is here. The author isn't an expert on nuclear and only goes into a couple of the possible reactors (no mention, for example, is made of LFTRs, which I think have the most potential as nuclear power), but it's a great start. It's also got sources and further reading at the end of the chapter. The biggest problem with any solution to climate change is political, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:You also end up with the issue: where do you store the hundreds and thousands of tons of CO2 and make sure it doesn't get accidentally re-released? Fire dry ice torpedoes into the ocean floor* *this is not insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Fire dry ice torpedoes into the ocean floor* Makes me think of the mostly discounted suggestions in the sulfate proposals to fire the aerosols in artillery shells into the stratosphere. And they said all that military spending was wasted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 08:50
|
|
The New Black posted:Makes me think of the mostly discounted suggestions in the sulfate proposals to fire the aerosols in artillery shells into the stratosphere. And they said all that military spending was wasted. We could just as easily do this with planes... 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:We already store multimegatons of CO2 underground every year. You pump it into depleted oilfields, basically. The IPCC is actually not grimly discouraged about the potential to store hundreds of gigatons of CO2 safely for millions of years. So could you theoretically build a cheap nuke plant like a pebble bed reactor at a depleted oil field and use the ridiculous amount of energy to direct capture all the CO2 into it? I mean, CO2 direct capture is exciting to me because whereas most of this thread is all "INEVITABLE ONE WAY TO DESTRUCTION" this would be a way to actually get back some of our CO2 budget even if we insist on being absolutely retarded in the face of global disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 16:23
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:Getting it out of the air is the big hurdle, though transport, site selection, pumping, and monitoring is also important as you say -- making sure we don't get a big "whoopsy doodle" is part of the fuckoff huge cost of hypothetical large scale direct air capture. For those interested in what a hypothetical "whoopsy doodle" might look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#1986_disaster
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:You probably need Paper Mac or someone to come along and explain though. Those materials scientists you talked to know way more about it than I do. I'm not a chemist and I have no idea what the prospects for CCS are. I do know that CCS can have no meaningful impact in an economy where a demand reduction policy regime is not in place, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Naomi Klein has an interview in Salon pushing her new book, which is about climate change. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/ She talks briefly of her view on geoengineering, which I think is relevant to the current discussion Naomi Klein posted:I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
This is the new "which is it, scientists?  " going around on facebookhttp://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/#ixzz2eVAskxWa
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:This is the new "which is it, scientists? Post these right back (Credit to the D&D pic thread)  
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
 Nearly 2 standard deviations below average is a great recovery!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
There's a detailed takedown on Skeptical Science, if you know anyone who actually reads things http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
This is a really depressing look at Greenland ice melt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euZ6q4bEKs
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Fagtastic posted:I want to know about the potential for nuclear energy to mitigate global warming disaster. I am approaching this issue as a scientist (neither nuclear nor climate specialised) and find the media entirely untrustworthy on this issue. I want informed, referenced, non-loving-newsmedia sources on the potential of nuclear power to avert catastrophic global warming. Particularly interested in calculations of carbon emission relating to mining and transporting nuclear fuel compared to comparable costs in other energy industries i.e. mining and transporting coal / industrial carbon costs of modern solar. This information is for a more important cause than my own personal peace of mind. http://bravenewclimate.com/ Climate scientist on nuclear power and his favourite reactor type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/ 'allo allo, this 'ere's an interesting one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:44
|
|