|
ProfessorCurly posted:The biggest, baddest mobile reactors I'm aware of are the ones driving the Nimitz class carriers. Those can output (about) 165 MegaWatts, although they are not set up to do so (Their turbines turn the propellers rather than produce electricity). Each one is probably equivalent to the new Grand Poubara Dam in Gabon. Make of that what you will, and that is a very back-of-the-envelope type figure. Very rough back-of-envelope, you'd need, what, 2,500 mwh generation capacity to replace Gabon's current coal and oil electricity production. 2,500 mwh = roughly 25 dedicate vessels, at a cost of how much/vessel? Full disclosure: I don't work on Gabonese policy development, I do work on Ugandan. There's been some recent exploratory work on oil reserves in the African Great Lakes region and that area is...quite rich with potential for extraction development. However, I don't think you'd much find any nation willing to turn over nuclear power development to a nation run by a non-white elite.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
"For the sixth successive year of PwC analysis, the Low Carbon Economy Index, 2 degrees of separation – ambition & reality finds that the global carbon intensity (greenhouse gas emissions per $GDP) reduction target has been missed. The gap between what countries are doing and what’s needed continues to grow." “Making up for the inadequacy to date will be technologically harder, financially costlier, and climactically riskier in the future.” http://press.pwc.com/GLOBAL/global-...8f-18ad9d1023b8 Related low carb emission index pdf: http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/low-carbon-economy-index-2014.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Anybody see this latest proposal by Robert Pollin for meeting greenhouse gas reductions without sacrificing jobs or the economy and also everyone gets a pony and also atoms are bad?quote:This article proposes a transformative US clean energy investment program that can meet the 40 percent reduction target over the next 20 years. I have developed this program in collaboration with Heidi Garrett-Peltier, James Heintz and Bracken Hendricks and with the support of the Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP will publish a book-length version of the study this fall, which includes all the analysis and calculations on which this article is based.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Where does he think that Japan has been getting its power from, ever since the reactors were shut down? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Where does he think that Japan has been getting its power from, ever since the reactors were shut down? Old timey windmills?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Anybody see this latest proposal by Robert Pollin for meeting greenhouse gas reductions without sacrificing jobs or the economy and also everyone gets a pony and also atoms are bad? Nuclear has side effects? Who knew!  It's pretty much the worst way to provide energy, except for all the other ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Hmm... it occurs to me that I haven't expounded much on why satellite temperature measurements (like RSS) aren't necessarily more accurate than terrestrial temperature measurements. I know I've criticized RSS, but I haven't really said why other than showing it as an outlier in the data - one that skeptics primarily use to claim "the pause" or "hiatus." The simple fact of the matter is that the devices satellites use to measure temperature are not particularly accurate. There are two main devices that satellites use to measure temperature: Microwave Sounders and Infrared Sounders. GPS radio occultation is a more recent method. Microwave Sounders have great coverage and sampling rates, but rather coarse vertical resolution. Infrared Sounders also have great coverage at a high sampling rate, but it also has decent vertical resolution. It is messed up by cloud and aerosol contamination, though. For example, RSS uses microwave sounders. The way these work is by measuring atmospheric microwave emissions; knowing this, you might ask how they get separate atmospheric layers? Basically, they use various measurements and weighting math to deduce temperature values. However, doing such things increases the uncertainty of the measurement. You might read different elsewhere - skeptic articles have claimed otherwise, because they don't know any better: quote:The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Has a predictable range of inaccuracy been established? If so, the obvious question would be if the RSS data range would include a portion that jives with the other studies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Has a predictable range of inaccuracy been established? If so, the obvious question would be if the RSS data range would include a portion that jives with the other studies. As far as I am aware, no. They assess uncertainty using a Monte Carlo estimation technique. There are a wide variety of variables and issues associated with satellite measurements, not limited just to the inaccuracy of microwave sounders... for one example, the satellites are pole-to-pole orbiters. This means that areas in the higher latitudes are far more often sampled than say the tropics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
I realize it's not necessarily within the purview of this thread, but does anyone have any resources with regards to sea-level rise and its effect on low-impact development strategies for stormwater runoff? Specifically in areas with a high water table?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Struensee posted:So apparently, Michael Mann filed a defamation suit over the national reviews dishonest coverage of his story. NR's attempt to get the case thrown out didn't go over in the first round. Now they're trying to appeal that decision. I hope they take it right up the rear end. I love Heat but this is ridiculous!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
So in other news, this happened but nobody noticed. My guess is that we've got about half a century to get an orbital civilization started before life starts to become unbearable on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Democracy Now! had good coverage of it, non-existent on larger media though. Cool to see solidarity in many different countries. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:So in other news, this happened but nobody noticed. Well, there's articles on the BBC and NY Times front pages, so it's hardly irrelevant. There was also a panel the day before the march by a heck of a panel, including Sanders, McKibben, Hedges, Sawant, and Klein. I'm midway through, and it's got some nice points, including a call to break from the democrats and for mass movements from multiple speakers. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
How does OWS get criticized for not having a clear goal but these folks don't? Maybe global warming will stop because it feels so unpopular? Do these folks know what they'd need to sacrifice to turn back the clock to 350(.org)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How does OWS get criticized for not having a clear goal but these folks don't? Maybe global warming will stop because it feels so unpopular? Do these folks know what they'd need to sacrifice to turn back the clock to 350(.org)? Their goals are "curb carbon emissions and replace energy generation with solar & wind". It's not necessarily the most realistic goal, but it's better than "I'm mad at the system".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Their goals are "curb carbon emissions and replace energy generation with solar & wind". It's not necessarily the most realistic goal, but it's better than "I'm mad at the system". Eh, based on the data I've seen in this thread about solar and wind's ability to provide sufficient baseload capacity to the US, it's equally as realistic a mesaage (though with fewer annoying drum circles). In a way it's even stupider, since most of OWS concerns were domestic, and climate change will still gently caress up this gay earth even if America goes back to the stone age. I didn't see too many appeals to Chinese coal power plant operators but maybe I missed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Eh, based on the data I've seen in this thread about solar and wind's ability to provide sufficient baseload capacity to the US, it's equally as realistic a mesaage (though with fewer annoying drum circles). The whole point is that they have something to point to and say "we all agree with this". OWS had "I'm mad at the system and I'm a mainstream liberal/socialist/libertarian/random guy that got screwed/etc". Its inclusiveness was inherently counterproductive to the image of a stable message. quote:
And banking (among other things) is definitely an international problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
So they have something to point to, which even if it were accomplished in time (a literal political impossibility), wouldn't ameliorate the effects of climate change. Still not seeing how this is any better than OWS. To say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of these folks would never consider the only conceivable way to quickly reduce carbon emissions, building more nuclear power (as you pointed out). People on the streets for more domestic solar, when they're not protesting for more nukes or divestment of Chinese firms that use coal power, need to be painted as the uninformed hippies they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
This measure is achievable but not sufficient, might as well do nothing! *Throws hands in air, retreats to survival basement to await the resource wars.* Anti-nuclear sentiment is too strong to just go full nuke right now. If we pick at the edges with renewables where possible, eventually we'll be able to make the argument "there's only X much coal power production left. We can replace it with a couple of nuclear plants and be carbon free." and it'll be a much more palatable argument to most Americans than "Replace everything with nucular right now." Baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Again, the data pretty clearly says that we're hosed unless we essentially stop all carbon emissions yesterday. Please help me understand how that's throwing up our hands, when you're throwing up YOUR hands discussing the ONLY solution to climate change at this point? It's too late to pick at the edges. We may be reducing coal consumption, but we're *massively* expanding natural gas production and consumption. And since these wells don't capture all the methane, it's possible that natural gas exploration actually has a worse effect on climate change than coal does. Maybe it's because it's happening in flyover states like Colorado, it's easy to pretend like we're not massively expanding our fossil fuel capacity and are indeed making meaningful progress towards greater use of renewable energy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:This measure is achievable but not sufficient, might as well do nothing! *Throws hands in air, retreats to survival basement to await the resource wars.* The issue is that as nuclear plants are decommissioned they're often replaced with fossil fuel plants (this happened in Germany) because of a variety of factors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Their goals are "curb carbon emissions and replace energy generation with solar & wind". It's not necessarily the most realistic goal, but it's better than "I'm mad at the system". OWS does have some goals, though. The main one is "get money the gently caress out of politics" and "quit letting Wall Street make all the decisions." There are some lesser ones like "student debt sucks let's fix it" and "poverty is bad let's fix poverty." They're decentralized and have a lot of messages sure but "they have no goals" is a bullshit statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:OWS does have some goals, though. The main one is "get money the gently caress out of politics" and "quit letting Wall Street make all the decisions." There are some lesser ones like "student debt sucks let's fix it" and "poverty is bad let's fix poverty." They're decentralized and have a lot of messages sure but "they have no goals" is a bullshit statement. Wall Street doesn't make all of the decisions though, unless you mean Wall Street as a short hand for corporations. A lot of policy decisions are made a long way from Wall Street and are used to prop up local constituents (for example, defense contractors). And I didn't say they had no goals, just that their goals were very unclear. Again, A libertarian solution to "get the money out of politics" is different from a socialist's solution, and both were present there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Wall Street doesn't make all of the decisions though, unless you mean Wall Street as a short hand for corporations. A lot of policy decisions are made a long way from Wall Street and are used to prop up local constituents (for example, defense contractors). At least OWS knows what side they're on - you didn't hear anyone from OWS cheering with joy at Citizens United, though you WOULD hear a climate change "activist" doing the same thing as a nuclear power plan is torn down and replaced with natgas/coal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:At least OWS knows what side they're on - you didn't hear anyone from OWS cheering with joy at Citizens United, though you WOULD hear a climate change "activist" doing the same thing as a nuclear power plan is torn down and replaced with natgas/coal. That's why I doubt nuclear activists were at that particular rally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Even gradually replacing fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy sources (preferably nukes) is better than not replacing them. I'd rather we hit +4 °C than +6 °C by 2100, for example. This should be a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
How much does it matter? Honest question since +4 is game over. This thing from a few years back mentioned the possibility of 4 by the 2070s, earlier if you took into account feedbacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Honestly you can tell most so-called climate activists don't believe their shtick either - if they did, they'd be openly advocating for people to not have children, so that they don't have to live in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that is sure to come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Honestly you can tell most so-called climate activists don't believe their shtick either - if they did, they'd be openly advocating for people to not have children, so that they don't have to live in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that is sure to come. We anti-natalists don't get invited to very many parties. Well, invited back, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Wall Street doesn't make all of the decisions though, unless you mean Wall Street as a short hand for corporations. A lot of policy decisions are made a long way from Wall Street and are used to prop up local constituents (for example, defense contractors). Their goals were clear enough, but the likes of you will always find an incoherent person playing a drum to show off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Their goals were clear enough, but the likes of you will always find an incoherent person playing a drum to show off. Quoted for truth. Not only do we need, I repeat, need to significantly reduce carbon emissions, we also need to find a way to geoengineer the world to fix the mistakes we've made. The protestors have clearly-defined goal, which is to reduce carbon emissions. Why is it up to a mob of people to come up with a complicated method of doing so?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How does OWS get criticized for not having a clear goal but these folks don't? Maybe global warming will stop because it feels so unpopular? Do these folks know what they'd need to sacrifice to turn back the clock to 350(.org)? "Stop climate change" is an extremely clear goal. Given the timing before the UN summit, the specific goal of this march is obviously to put pressure on politicians all over the world to actually start getting into action. If you listen to the panel they had before the protest, the broad strategies to achieve the main goal are pretty clear too. I agree the nuclear power is currently more promising than solar and wind, but achieving that is going to require pro-nuclear activists getting involved in the environmental movement. Nuanced plans and decisions aren't done during the protest, and details and controversies aren't decided at press conferences. LeftistMuslimObama posted:Anti-nuclear sentiment is too strong to just go full nuke right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:We anti-natalists don't get invited to very many parties. Well, invited back, anyway. Why is that, anyways? If you sincerely believe that the world will be a massive shithole by 2100, why the gently caress are you having kids (assuming that it's going to be a slow slide to that endgame the whole way)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
Radbot posted:Why is that, anyways? If you sincerely believe that the world will be a massive shithole by 2100, why the gently caress are you having kids (assuming that it's going to be a slow slide to that endgame the whole way)? Because the problem isn't "kids", it's carbon. I understand that by not having a child you're preventing another carbon producer from being born, but that's not helping anyone. We need to change our ways, there is no turning it off. Having children and indoctrinating them(alright I'll admit you don't need to have them to indoctrinate them, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier) seems like a pretty good move if you want to steer the future. Also, if you don't have kids, what's the loving point of life anyways?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Baby steps. The problem is that we don't have time for baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Because the problem isn't "kids", it's carbon. I understand that by not having a child you're preventing another carbon producer from being born, but that's not helping anyone. We need to change our ways, there is no turning it off. Having children and indoctrinating them(alright I'll admit you don't need to have them to indoctrinate them, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier) seems like a pretty good move if you want to steer the future. Er, it's not about preventing carbon producers. If you've read the thread, you'd know it's too late for that. It's about not wanting to bring a kid into a world plagued with resource wars, a lack of oil, etc. Something tells me that the economic situation facing the kids of the Western world now won't get better when most of the world's biodiversity is gone. quote:Also, if you don't have kids, what's the loving point of life anyways? I agree, the infertile should kill themselves. With fire, amirite? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Honestly you can tell most so-called climate activists don't believe their shtick either - if they did, they'd be openly advocating for people to not have children, so that they don't have to live in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that is sure to come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:02
|
|
Radbot posted:Er, it's not about preventing carbon producers. If you've read the thread, you'd know it's too late for that. It's about not wanting to bring a kid into a world plagued with resource wars, a lack of oil, etc. Something tells me that the economic situation facing the kids of the Western world now won't get better when most of the world's biodiversity is gone. You mean like the vast majority of human existence? Since when is life guaranteed to be great? The struggle is what life is. quote:I agree, the infertile should kill themselves. With fire, amirite? Honestly it's more of a personal philosophy than anything. There are plenty of ways to "have kids" (in the sense I'm talking about) without literally giving birth. I'm more talking about leaving an impact on the people that are going to be here after you. But quite frankly I do think combining genetics to create a new organism is pretty much the coolest thing we can do and isn't an experience I'd choose to miss.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
I don't think it's the right course of action, but if you honestly believe your kids are going to have a lovely life and you still have them anyways, you're A Bad Parent. And again, it's not "oh you're gonna struggle but it'll be OK honey". If the most dire predictions of climate change are correct, it's going to be a bit more difficult to get by then putting a bit more into your kid's 529.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:05
|
|