|
peter banana posted:ehhhhhh, not sure about that. Building a sustainable homestead takes time and effort but it is possible to have a high quality of life, even without electricity. Additionally, residential PV cells and batteries are becoming much more accessible and it's becoming easier than ever to go "off-grid." But that's not the original and blatantly false comparison: Radbot posted:Who would you say is better off - a frontiersman with a large amount of free land given to him, yet no income as he is a subsistence farmer - or a part-time single mom working at McDonalds in 2014? Why compare a parent to a non-parent if you're trying to make a fair comparison? (Much less a de facto land owner to a non land owner. Good luck farming after your land is claimed for a mine/plantation if you don't actually own it.) Sure, if you get to have a resource supply chain that stretches the globe and has heavy involvement of the grid, you can take those products off-grid and have a good time. You can't But that's moot, you're still benefiting from the maligned progress of economic development. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 23, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
peter banana posted:ehhhhhh, not sure about that. Building a sustainable homestead takes time and effort but it is possible to have a high quality of life, even without electricity. Additionally, residential PV cells and batteries are becoming much more accessible and it's becoming easier than ever to go "off-grid." Frontiersmen and photovoltaics are from different periods in time though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/files/mssi/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdfquote:Based simply on the comparison of observed data and the LTG scenarios presented above, and given the significantly better alignment with the BAU scenario than the other two scenarios, it would appear that the global economy and population is on the cusp of collapse. This contrasts with other forecasts for the global future (eg. Raskin et al., 2010, Randers, 2012), which indicate a longer or indeterminate period before global collapse; Randers for example forecasts collapse after 2050, largely based around climate change impacts, with features akin to the LTG comprehensive technology scenario. This section therefore examines more closely the mechanisms behind the near-term BAU collapse and explores whether these resemble any real-world developments. I hate to post something so dire a few days before Christmas, but folks in here were talking about modeling the future, timelines, potential outcomes and the like, and anyone who is seriously interested in knowing about the possibilities and likely scenarios needs to take a look at this research paper and the works it is based on. It's a pretty short paper and probably won't take you longer than 30 or 40 minutes to read. The basic gist is this: about 40 years ago, a group of systems scientists got together and attempted to create a computer model of where industrial society is headed based on the data they already had. The model, and subsequent paper, The Limits to Growth, is based on a systems analysis that attempts to consider feedback loops and how the discrete systems/curves (population growth, resource use, pollution, standard of living, etc) all interact. The outcome of the computer model was grim indeed; under a "business as usual" scenario, where the growth rates of the various curves continues without some significant shift in policy or lifestyle, industrial society suffers a serious collapse starting around 2030 or so. The report was taken quite seriously at the time but soon fell out of favor, and by the 90s, it was openly ridiculed by many, largely due to a serious misunderstanding in what was being predicted and how the predictions work (the author of the paper linked above covers this in detail). Since the report, we've got about 40 years worth of data to plug in, and we can actually track how closely the predictions match with reality. As you can guess, it ain't pretty. The curves in the model for the BAU scenario (a scenario that, again, results in collapse) are strongly tracked by real-world data. What I find most interesting is that the predicted mechanism for collapse isn't climate change or even resource depletion itself, but the efforts to combat resource depletion. As cheap crude gets harder to come by, more and more capital has to be allocated to getting oil out of the ground in harder ways than before (think offshore drilling, fracking, etc). At some point, the strain caused by the capital reallocation basically causes the economy at large to throw a rod, because the capital is needed elsewhere. After that, it's not hard to imagine a cascade, where the positive feedback loops caused by one structural weakness/collapse induce other areas of the economy and our lifestyle to break down as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is pretty much just a meaningless platitude at best, complete nonsense at worst. Hell, the idea that technology is a separable part of human existence is already nonsense on its own; without technology we'd have been dead a long time ago. The idea that 'technology will save us' is mocked here even though that's been the case endless times through human existence. Why aren't we starving like Malthus said? Because technology allows us to produce food at a rate that was unthinkable at that time. One person creates in an hour what would have taken an army of men back then. Why haven't we been wiped out by plague or disease? Because science saved us with medicine. None of these things were planned either. It wasn't like we waited for medicine to mature before we started cramming people into cities. Anyway technology is humanity, our primary evolutionary advantage is how well our brain works to interact with tools in the environment. Hahaha, wow, wet the bed last night or something? I never said anything about being anti-technology, or that technology doesn't make things better or easier, you dolt. We simply don't need more advanced tech than we currently have in order to do something meaningful about climate change. You appear to be arguing against some other post that you made up in your head. Maybe the word "plutocracy" triggers you? Surely you don't think I realize that if the masses cared or knew enough we could change things, right? Do you have a better explanation for why we aren't doing much than I do? (Hint: look up the definitions of "political" and "sociological" before you make a bigger fool of yourself.) tsa posted:Hell, one of the best things we could do now is a massive worldwide nuclear infrastructure overhaul yet it's the aging hippies, not elites stopping that one. EDIT: Just to make it especially clear that you're being an idiot, let it be known that I wholeheartedly agree here, although this: joeburz posted:Considering the immense power behind the gas/coal/oil industries, I wouldn't really claim that aging hippies are the only ones stopping nuclear. Nuclear has unimaginable regulations compared to that of the fossil fuel industry, and that isn't because aging hippies don't care about those energy sources. is also an important factor, as is the history of nuclear's development and the nuclear industry's specialized manufacturing requirements. Again, this is a political and sociological problem. pwnyXpress fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
The kind of indescribably irresponsible bullshit that the nuclear industry got up to prior to 1980's is probably the main reason why nuclear energy got such a bad reputation among environmentally aware folks. Pity that, things have improved a lot from those days. But really, it's not unreasonable when you look at the standards by which reactors used to be built back then, that they tend to go boom 40 years down the line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The kind of indescribably irresponsible bullshit that the nuclear industry got up to prior to 1980's is probably the main reason why nuclear energy got such a bad reputation among environmentally aware folks. Pity that, things have improved a lot from those days. But really, it's not unreasonable when you look at the standards by which reactors used to be built back then, that they tend to go boom 40 years down the line. Isn't building a nuclear power plant also at the moment prohibitively expensive? One of the biggest advantages of burning stuff for fuel is that the stuff you burn has a crap load of energy locked into it that can be released really, really easily. Like coal is just as cheap as it is dirty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Isn't building a nuclear power plant also at the moment prohibitively expensive? One of the biggest advantages of burning stuff for fuel is that the stuff you burn has a crap load of energy locked into it that can be released really, really easily. Like coal is just as cheap as it is dirty. Building it is expensive but the actual fuel isn't that much, really. Especially since one nuclear plant can replace multiple coal plants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Isn't building a nuclear power plant also at the moment prohibitively expensive? One of the biggest advantages of burning stuff for fuel is that the stuff you burn has a crap load of energy locked into it that can be released really, really easily. Like coal is just as cheap as it is dirty. computer parts posted:Building it is expensive but the actual fuel isn't that much, really. What he said. Yes, (modern) nuclear power plants require massive capital investment to build safely, but with a lifetime of 30+ years they don't end up much more expensive than coal over time since maintenance costs and fuel per megawatt produced are so low. And then of course there's the unquantifiable enviromental benefits of producing none of the toxic and greenhouse-active byproducts that fossil fuels tend to do when burned. Unless of course you're the French nuclear company Areva, in which case you sell a plant to Finland on turnkey contract to be finished in four years (by 2009), and instead spend a decade on the project (current estimate of final delivery by 2018) because you're a lovely lovely company who doesn't grasp the concept that you can't bribe Finnish safety inspectors and get away with delegeting everything to a million unaccountable subcontractors who hire completely unqualified eastern europeans without any identity papers to completely gently caress everything up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken the main issue with building nuclear power plants is a relative lack of qualified workers to operate the plants more than the actual cost of construction (although that is very high). That's a big reason why China is "only" building 28 reactors (obviously that's a lot, but considering China's size...) at the moment instead of going nuts like they did with dams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Isn't building a nuclear power plant also at the moment prohibitively expensive? One of the biggest advantages of burning stuff for fuel is that the stuff you burn has a crap load of energy locked into it that can be released really, really easily. Like coal is just as cheap as it is dirty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Kassad posted:If I'm not mistaken the main issue with building nuclear power plants is a relative lack of qualified workers to operate the plants more than the actual cost of construction (although that is very high). That's a big reason why China is "only" building 28 reactors (obviously that's a lot, but considering China's size...) at the moment instead of going nuts like they did with dams. We get a lot of nuclear plant technicians here out of the Navy
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Joy: Greenland's Ice Loss Now Comes from Surface So water is melting on the surface now - lakes are persisting yearly without freezing, water is draining into deep crevices... they are not sure if the water is flowing into the ocean. Fun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Your perennial reminder that Greenpeace is horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Is this supposed to be an Ai Weiwei-esque statement to point out how people will get outraged at the destruction of these ancient grounds, even though much worse destruction is going on all around us every day? Because on the surface it just looks like an 'any publicity is good publicity, gently caress it' shock piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Has anyone reviewed the plan put forth by Jay Inslee? http://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/climate/waleg15.aspx Doesn't seem to mention anything about the oil trains barreling through the PNW. My concern is that anything proposed by our gov will not be radical enough. Radical enough to fix the issue that is, but I'm no expert on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
So apparently the methane cloud over the southwest was the result of conventional energy extraction? Any global implications, or more detail on energy extraction in the southwest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The kind of indescribably irresponsible bullshit that the nuclear industry got up to prior to 1980's is probably the main reason why nuclear energy got such a bad reputation among environmentally aware folks. Pity that, things have improved a lot from those days. But really, it's not unreasonable when you look at the standards by which reactors used to be built back then, that they tend to go boom 40 years down the line. And yet, even having a Chernobyl or Fukushima every decade would be preferable to coal 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 09:56
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
DBlanK posted:Has anyone reviewed the plan put forth by Jay Inslee? It may not be enough, but holy poo poo at least someone is doing something. Most states are led by men that completely deny anything could be happening. Also, thanks for continuing to contribute to the debate and discussion despite your less than lukewarm reception in the PNW thread. Try to avoid probation, anything you post will piss someone off, lurk more. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
blowfish posted:And yet, even having a Chernobyl or Fukushima every decade would be preferable to coal Yeah, but it's not a proposition that's ever going to be tenable to the voting public. The political divide that we're stuck with has two sides, neither of which is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. The right doesn't want to give up fossil fuels, the environmentalists don't want to give up their opposition to nuclear and GMO. Personally I can't really see a way out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, but it's not a proposition that's ever going to be tenable to the voting public. The political divide that we're stuck with has two sides, neither of which is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. The right doesn't want to give up fossil fuels, the environmentalists don't want to give up their opposition to nuclear and GMO. Well, let's watch most current industrialised nations run their economies into the ground with a half-hearted renewable/fossil fuel combination while China/India lead the way in ramping up nuclear deployment to useful levels (but not before we add another 2 degrees of warming)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Well, let's watch most current industrialised nations run their economies into the ground with a half-hearted renewable/fossil fuel combination while China/India lead the way in ramping up nuclear deployment to useful levels (but not before we add another 2 degrees of warming)? Well I was talking about the West specifically, yeah... It's encouraging to see the China and India building nuclear, but whatever benefit they provide is still going to be hampered by the pressures of their populace's demands for more economic growth, which will necessarily lead to more fossil fuel plants in addition to the nuclear ones. I'm really hoping India's thorium reactors work, that poo poo could be the real fusion power we've all been waiting for. Could end all our energy production woes for centuries ahead, if I've understood it correctly. Westerners though are far too arrogant to follow the lead of rubbish untermenschen nations. The future is solar, especially here in the north! lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, but it's not a proposition that's ever going to be tenable to the voting public. The political divide that we're stuck with has two sides, neither of which is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. The right doesn't want to give up fossil fuels, the environmentalists don't want to give up their opposition to nuclear and GMO. imho popular/political opinion is basically a lagging indicator as resource depletion marches on (at whatever rate you believe), eroei drops, and more of the transportation workload shifts to the grid, its going to become a very simple case of build more nukes or enjoy the brownouts it will take very few consecutive months of brownouts, not even years, to flip popular opinion on nukes
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:
The issue is more the same issue with any developed industry - the people who were latecomers can get the new tech out faster because they don't have to replace anything. In this case, the developing nations don't have existing nuclear facilities so there's no outcry against building new (better) ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:imho popular/political opinion is basically a lagging indicator Public opinion on nuclear power has actually gotten significantly more favorable in the last two years. The Nuclear Energy Institute has a compilation and analysis of public opinion polls that show 68 percent of Americans in favor of using nuclear energy, with 55 percent in favor of building new plants. The biggest problem isn't public opinion, which honestly matters very little. It's that fossil fuel companies have more money than god and can use this money to influence politics in their favor. They don't want anything else cutting into their energy mix, and nobody but the government can fund nuclear plants anyways. At least, that's my read on the situation. Besides, it takes 5 years to build a nuke plant in absolutely perfect conditions. Although I'm not sure why brownouts would be occurring in the first place. The US has centuries worth of coal remaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Yeah, Big Oil has the networks and money to set up curiously well-funded astroturf NIMBY crews in every city in the country. It's essentially going to assassinate the career of any politicians to go up against that unless the population is VERY interested in the outcome,
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:
I think that was under a scenario where we adopt things like electric cars, which increases demand on the grid. Imagine all of the transportation section here, but going through the electricity section.  Now imagine if we decommission some of those existing nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The issue is more the same issue with any developed industry - the people who were latecomers can get the new tech out faster because they don't have to replace anything. In this case, the developing nations don't have existing nuclear facilities so there's no outcry against building new (better) ones.  it's why in every city that's proud of having introduced them really early underground trains are poo poo (e.g. paris, london), while new underground services are usually better in every way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
My family spent a couple of weeks in London this summer and honestly even the oldest lines seemed like science fiction coming from a zero-infrastructure place like Austin. Some of the bigger, newer stations are mind boggling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think that was under a scenario where we adopt things like electric cars, which increases demand on the grid. Imagine all of the transportation section here, but going through the electricity section. The NREL models for high renewables usage includes a shifted transportation fleet and grid stability. More expensive than just burning coal of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
emfive posted:My family spent a couple of weeks in London this summer and honestly even the oldest lines seemed like science fiction coming from a zero-infrastructure place like Austin. Some of the bigger, newer stations are mind boggling. Ok, I admit I haven't seen the MURICAN way of bungling public transportation first hand yet  Trabisnikof posted:The NREL models for high renewables usage includes a shifted transportation fleet and grid stability. More expensive than just burning coal of course. It would be less  to just run nuclear plants 24/7 and shunt whatever surplus is caused by changes in demand and renewable supply into LNG/synthetic gas though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ok, I admit I haven't seen the MURICAN way of bungling public transportation first hand yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think that was under a scenario where we adopt things like electric cars, which increases demand on the grid. Imagine all of the transportation section here, but going through the electricity section. Unfortunately they'll just get replaced with Coal or Gas. Vermont Yankee shutdown today and its likely going to be replaced with a Natural Gas
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately they'll just get replaced with Coal or Gas. Vermont Yankee shutdown today and its likely going to be replaced with a Natural Gas A triumphant win for the environmental movement, alongside the cancellation of Dickey-Lincoln way back when. 
Hedera Helix fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:A triumphant win for the environmental movement, alongside the cancellation of Dickey-Lincoln way back when. Yup. Greenpeace and their ilk are so full of poo poo. That was 70% of their baseload generating too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think that was under a scenario where we adopt things like electric cars, which increases demand on the grid. Imagine all of the transportation section here, but going through the electricity section. What do the Rejected Energy and Energy Services stand for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:What do the Rejected Energy and Energy Services stand for? Energy services is "useful energy", "Rejected energy" is stuff lost to heat or any other inefficiencies. So for every 27 units that goes into transportation (cars, etc), 21.3 units are not used at all and are just wasted. This is where you can potentially improve with more efficient technology. Unsurprisingly, the most efficient processes are the industrial ones, because they typically see the actual cost of wasting energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Energy services is "useful energy", "Rejected energy" is stuff lost to heat or any other inefficiencies. That seems a bit abstract, but ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:A triumphant win for the environmental movement Well, seeing how the plant wasn't shut down because of environmentalist but was shut down due to it being expensive to operate, I don't think the environmentalists can claim much credit. I'd say this is a win for O&G.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, seeing how the plant wasn't shut down because of environmentalist but was shut down due to it being expensive to operate, I don't think the environmentalists can claim much credit. I'd say this is a win for O&G. There were multiple attempts to reapply for the license. It was just convenient to them to appear to give in to protest demands. Its a loss in my book
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The right doesn't want to give up fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
