|
Anosmoman posted:On March 20th Germany will have a partial solar eclipse which will first reduce energy output from their PV and then sharply increase it afterwards. If it's a sunny day it will be an exciting time to play extreme peaker planting. As far as a reason for power production off lining, a solar eclipse might in fact be the most foreseeable of all reasons. poo poo was forecastable for centuries. May be right up there with mechanical failure due to universal heat death.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Bad news, good news time. Bad news: California is hosed Good news: Global emissions didn't rise from 2013-2014
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Isn't California building loads of desalination plants to try to make up for it? I thought I saw something about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Isn't California building loads of desalination plants to try to make up for it? I thought I saw something about it. Existing desalination technology is expensive, not only to build, but to run. Crazy energy intensive, you are left with ecologically harmful brine, and there is no way you can scale up production to cover just how much water they are losing. Even the newer experimental desalination techniques are still energy intensive, and even if they price viable the amount of time required to get the infrastructure up and running will cause problems. It is even worse because Nevada is counting on water from northern California to help with their crazy drought problem, and they don't have the ocean right next to them. They pretty much need all the desalination plants they can get and an end to the doubt. This isn't a California only problem though, groundwater is being used up fast everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Isn't California building loads of desalination plants to try to make up for it? I thought I saw something about it. For municipal water there are desal plants and reclamation plants that can be built (and are), as well as conservation efforts. That isn't the problem, the problem is agriculture. Cities/Industry reduced water use by something like 60% last year in response to the drought. Ag increased it by 2%, and it's the bulk of the use (90%). Desal for ag use is really expensive, even if electricity is cheap. Our ag industry is used to hugely subsidized water in terms of what crops they grow (ie, the most profitable), and is rapidly using ground water where it can to make up for the shortfall from the Central Valley project. At some point they'll have no water from the ground and none from the state, so they'll have to actually shift to less profitable crops, or to stop farming some of the land in the San Joaquin valley (southern part of the central valley) which is way more arid than the northern 1/3rd of the central valley. They'll still grow some stuff, but it's a question of $$$ and lobbying and resistance to change. Considering that a lot of the farming being done is fairly new (50-70's is when a lot of the infrastructure was built out), and a lot of the farming is done by large conglomerates or for things like massive (but cheap) cheese exports, there's a shitload of inefficiency in the current system with regards to water use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Basically if you like Almonds or the products of Almond production, stock the gently caress up now, because California produces 50-80% of the worlds supply of that nut and it's one of the most water intensive crops on the planet. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Pervis posted:They'll still grow some stuff, but it's a question of $$$ and lobbying and resistance to change. My current fear is that hungry industry eyes are going to start turning towards the North, where there's still a decent amount of non-exploited environmental (that is, freeflowing) water. Diverting it would probably be hella expensive, but the alternative (voluntary "degrowth") seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Right, I didn't mean to say that Desalination would solve all their problems. I just saw somewhere that they were ramping up production of that and was interested. Sounds like this drought needs to end this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Sounds like this drought needs to end this year. The bad news on that front is that it's likely going to just get worse as time goes on. In addition to general changes in precipitation levels, you also tend to have more rain than snow over the Rocky Mountains as climate change continues apace, which makes thin snowpacks even thinner. Even if there was a miraculous spring and summer rain and a bountiful snow-packed winter this year, it'd be kicking the can down the road one more year, and nothing more. The current state of agriculture in California is doomed. What really needs to happen is for the public to realize - and for political movements to form around - the notion that freshwater is a scarce, valuable resource that is absolutely necessary for the functioning of a modern state, and that it should be allocated with the absolute strictest measures possible. No bidding, no purchasing, no water use taxes: just plain and simple command-style allocation, democratically decided upon. The alternative is exactly what's happening right now. Even the presence of stronger regulatory measures (if they ever manage to actually be put in - that report says that the earliest you might see something is 2030 or thereabouts) wouldn't be enough, because the roughly $142 billion ($42 billion produced by the industry; $100 billion produced by related economic activity) the agricultural industry brings in represents a hefty chunk of change. Even completely ignoring lobbying, the government of California has a keen interest in ensuring that multi-billions don't suddenly vanish from the economy, and that interest is going to directly collide with and erode the regulations they may want to implement. It's a maddening ouroboros without an easy way out. Vermain fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Edit: I guess certain breeder reactors are better at making Pu-239, but they're using it as fuel in the reactor. The most secure place for fuel to be is in the reactor. Proliferation is especially a non-issue in places like the US, which still has enough bombs to blow up the world a few times over anyways. Of course politicians would have a hissy fit of countries like Iran ever used that reactor type, but even that can be regulated by routine international inspection. Stopping a reactor and opening it up isn't exactly something you can do stealthily. I still think that if theres a sensible case to be made against nuke power, its the fact that we appear to have a double standard. Its OK for white western countries to have reactors that can make nuke bomb fuel, but not OK for countries we don't like. It would seem the biggest threat, therefore from building nuclear reactors, is that americans might bomb you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I still think that if theres a sensible case to be made against nuke power, its the fact that we appear to have a double standard. Its OK for white western countries to have reactors that can make nuke bomb fuel, but not OK for countries we don't like. It would seem the biggest threat, therefore from building nuclear reactors, is that americans might bomb you. Oh yeah, the double standard is obvious and appalling. Every country should have the right to nuclear power. Honestly, Israel and the US aren't even worried that Iran is building a bomb, they just say that part to scare voters. When both Mossad and US intelligence agree Iran's not building a bomb, it's clear that they are just trying to check Iran as a regional power. If Iran gets nuclear power, it can afford to export a lot more oil (and make a lot more money), which is what they're really scared of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Good new on the US wind front, EIA estimates that US wind could grow to 30+% of generation with only a marginal increase in electricity price that is well offset by the economic positives.The Ars Writeup posted:Extrapolating current installation rates means that the US should reach a 25 percent capacity by 2050 even if the price of the hardware remains constant. Should wind costs continue to drop as they have, penetration will reach 34 percent—roughly the goal. But if fossil fuel costs rise a bit, wind could be supplying over 40 percent of the nation's electricity in 2050. You can find the full report here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/wv_executive_summary_overview_and_key_chapter_findings_final.pdf Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
quote:"Wind generation variability has a minimal and manageable impact on grid reliability and related costs." We'd have to expand transmission lines, but not at a rate that's any different from what we're doing at present. quote:The levels of wind penetration examined in the Study Scenario increase variability and uncertainty in electric power system planning and operations (Figure ES.3-3). From the perspective of planning reserves, wind power’s aggregated capacity value in the Study Scenario was about 10–15% in 2050 (with lower marginal capacity value), thereby reducing the ability of wind compared to other generators to contribute to increases in peak planning reserve requirements. In addition, the uncertainty introduced by wind in the Study Scenario increased the level of operating reserves that must be maintained by the system. Transmission constraints result in average curtailment of 2–3% of wind generation, modestly increasing the threshold for economic wind deployment. These costs are embedded in the system costs and retail rate impacts noted below. Such challenges can be mitigated by various means including increased system flexibility, greater electric system
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:What is this based on? I searched through the report and the only mention of variability basically handwaves furiously at it: variability is going to be fun, because we are totally not going to get the planning right (we never do). we are going to crash headlong into outages and brownouts, which perversely will drive more people to setup solar and get batteries. not because the economics will make a ton of sense, but because cattle stampede.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Vermain posted:The bad news on that front is that it's likely going to just get worse as time goes on. In addition to general changes in precipitation levels, you also tend to have more rain than snow over the Rocky Mountains as climate change continues apace, which makes thin snowpacks even thinner. Even if there was a miraculous spring and summer rain and a bountiful snow-packed winter this year, it'd be kicking the can down the road one more year, and nothing more. The current state of agriculture in California is doomed. There's some pretty huge problems there, though. The biggest one is that humans are not only extremely myopic about basically everything but when it comes to a resource that feels inexhaustible we tend to treat it that way until there is none left. I live in PA and one thing we're known for is trees because I mean it's even in the state's loving name. We got lots of forests. Except when we didn't. People literally clear cut the entire state figuring "meh, it will just grow back, whatever" and then it...uh...didn't. The forest had to be replanted and nurtured back into existence at pretty great expense. Water is likely to go a similar route; people are just going to suck the aquifers dry and then go "oh poo poo now what?" Eventually we got fancy things like managed forests and tree farms but it took a complete, total, catastrophic collapse of our woods for somebody to actually do anything about it. The other snag is that irrigation is the biggest user of water and agribusiness isn't in the business of thinking long term. You see this with all the ammonia being sprayed all over the corn belt. They just give no shits; more corn at all costs. Who cares that the nitrates are literally killing the Gulf of Mexico? We have loving corn to grow! I feel like this is possibly why there is so much lobbying on people individually conserving water. Use at home is actually a pretty tiny chunk of water use but you're always seeing "shower for less time! wash the dishes in less water! you need to conserve because this is YOUR fault!" but even if every single person in America quit using water in their home completely it would still reduce overall water usage by less than 10%. Water use is largely not used individually but rather by agriculture and they don't see to give much of a poo poo about conservation. Another major, major, major snag is that California has an extremely long growing season and there is stuff we want that grows really well there but not anywhere else. Not really, anyway, plus that growing season means they can grow more stuff there so of course they want to pump water in. Even so we're going to be seeing more food pressure on top of the water pressure and that long growing season is just too useful. It's like a perfect storm of "oh gently caress literally every choice is somehow bad."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
It boils down to people wanting to grow turf grass in a loving desert/prairie. Substitute turf grass for any other plant life which does not grow in desert or prairie as needed. Nothing so perfectly represents how loving arrogant and corpulent and suicidally obstinate we are as a mcmansion with a lush green lawn in goddamn Oklahoma or Texas or inland California or any of the other places not suited for carpet-like lawns. Which is a good part of the country if you want to go off of "what will survive with no artificial irrigation measures."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It boils down to people wanting to grow turf grass in a loving desert/prairie. Substitute turf grass for any other plant life which does not grow in desert or prairie as needed. People doing crap like that can also go the opposite way. I've seen a few houses in this sector of the world where they'd cover the yard in gravel and then put fake, wooden cacti up. Granted that's also less ravaging to the water supply and doesn't cause the same problems as a verdant green lawn in the middle of the desert. Still confuses me though...if you hate the terrain of an area so much why even live there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It boils down to people wanting to grow turf grass in a loving desert/prairie. Substitute turf grass for any other plant life which does not grow in desert or prairie as needed. That's simply not true. Looking at California, only 14% of water used goes to residential use. Landscaping accounts for about half of that, and that's in a very warm area like Southern California. http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a-season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html Reducing lawn watering is the most important thing an individual can do, but even banning lawn watering wouldn't solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:What is this based on? I searched through the report and the only mention of variability basically handwaves furiously at it: Sorry I didn't link to the full report, just the executive summary, the full report is here: http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/WindVision_Report_final.pdf While some people might be underestimating the impacts of wind on the grid, I doubt the EIA is. They're using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model which is tuned to the specific problems associated with adding renewables (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/description.html). Specifically, on the question of new tranmission needs: quote:Although transmission expansion needs are greater in the Study Scenario, transmission expenditures are less than 2% of total electric sector costs. Incremental cumulative (beginning in 2013) transmission needs On direct electricity prices: quote:In 2020, the range of estimated incremental retail electricity rate ranges from a nearly zero cost difference vs. the Baseline Scenario up to a 1% cost increase. In 2030, incremental costs are estimated to be as high as a 3% increase vs. the Baseline Scenario under the most unfavorable conditions for wind (low fuel cost combined with high wind technology costs). Under the most favorable conditions modeled (high fuel cost combined with low wind costs), the Study Scenario results in a 2% reduction in retail electricity prices relative to the Baseline Scenario. By 2050, incremental electricity prices of all cases of the Study Scenario are estimated to range from a 5% increase to a 5% savings over the corresponding Baseline Scenario. On reliability and ready reserves: quote:The levels of wind penetration examined in the Study Scenario increase variability and uncertainty in electric power system planning and operations (Figure 3-3). From the perspective of planning reserves, the aggregated capacity value of wind power in the Study Scenario is about 10–15% in 2050 (with lower mar- ginal capacity value). This reduces the ability of wind compared to other electricity generation to contribute to increases in peak planning reserve requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:People doing crap like that can also go the opposite way. I've seen a few houses in this sector of the world where they'd cover the yard in gravel and then put fake, wooden cacti up. Granted that's also less ravaging to the water supply and doesn't cause the same problems as a verdant green lawn in the middle of the desert. Still confuses me though...if you hate the terrain of an area so much why even live there? Most people don't chose where they live, in the sense of choosing a place for its geography. They choose it because they need to be close to a job, a family, or just a place where the cost of living matches what they can afford. And so they try to recreate a little plot of what they consider "home" into this new place, because anything beats actually looking at the native landscape of, let's say, San Bernandino. Combine that with the traditionalist view that a person's home is their castle, to do with what they want whenever they want however they want, and what people want are green lawns. They're nice to look at and a lot nicer to actually be active on than xeriscaped prairie. You want that to chance, you have some very big cultural tendancies you're going to have to uproot first. Which might actually be harder than just properly regulating the handful (comparatively) of big water users and you'll get bigger gains to boot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
So...are humans about to go extinct? I'm 22 now, and I have trouble with this, and the realization that my life may end with intense starvation and thirst experienced by all other humans on the planet. I read reports on how we're doomed, no one is going to acknowledge it, and within this century we'll just die out. Are these just from the pessimists, and there is real reason for hope and belief that, while things will be bad, humanity will survive, or am I just fooling myself and it would be better to just die?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:So...are humans about to go extinct? I'm 22 now, and I have trouble with this, and the realization that my life may end with intense starvation and thirst experienced by all other humans on the planet. I read reports on how we're doomed, no one is going to acknowledge it, and within this century we'll just die out. Are these just from the pessimists, and there is real reason for hope and belief that, while things will be bad, humanity will survive, or am I just fooling myself and it would be better to just die? Humanity will not go extinct by the end of the century. Whether you will starve depends entirely on where you live but that's been true for a few hundred years now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Yeah, don't worry. The really bad poo poo from climate change won't start until around midcentury, could be nearer to the end of the century. Maybe rethink having kids, but don't worry about your own life on an existential level too much. Best thing you can do is try to support policies that make human extinction less likely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:So...are humans about to go extinct? I'm 22 now, and I have trouble with this, and the realization that my life may end with intense starvation and thirst experienced by all other humans on the planet. I read reports on how we're doomed, no one is going to acknowledge it, and within this century we'll just die out. Are these just from the pessimists, and there is real reason for hope and belief that, while things will be bad, humanity will survive, or am I just fooling myself and it would be better to just die? If you're in the first world you'll probably be fine, on the whole. Depending on how young you are you might live to see some very interesting times before you croak. I wouldn't want to be a member of the post-millennials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
How likely is near-term human extinction at this point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:How likely is near-term human extinction at this point? What's the smallest number you can have that isn't zero?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:How likely is near-term human extinction at this point? Extremely unlikely. Lots of suffering, but hey that's no different than the last couple hundreds years am I right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
So close to zero as to be completely not worth worrying about. Humans are not going to go extinct unless someone figures out a way to blow up the planet, or burn off the whole atmosphere, or we get hit by a huge asteroid or something. The chances of the end of human civilisation as we know it are higher but still vanishingly small. If you live in a wealthy nation and you're not mentally ill or homeless or something you're very unlikely to ever starve to death. Things are going to get very very very bad for the poorer parts of the world, and millions or even billions of people are likely to die miserably, but if you're posting here the chances of you being one of them are small.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:How likely is near-term human extinction at this point? Define near. Hiro Protagonist posted:So...are humans about to go extinct? I'm 22 now, and I have trouble with this, and the realization that my life may end with intense starvation and thirst experienced by all other humans on the planet. I read reports on how we're doomed, no one is going to acknowledge it, and within this century we'll just die out. Are these just from the pessimists, and there is real reason for hope and belief that, while things will be bad, humanity will survive, or am I just fooling myself and it would be better to just die? Don't feel bad. None of that stuff will happen until next century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's simply not true. Looking at California, only 14% of water used goes to residential use. Landscaping accounts for about half of that, and that's in a very warm area like Southern California. http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a-season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html FAUXTON posted:Substitute turf grass for any other plant life which does not grow in desert or prairie as needed. Like almonds in the goddamn desert, then, gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
I don't think the total extinction of the human species would be appreciably different for the average individual from a total collapse of technological civilization. Point being, there is a very good chance of things going to really poo poo and never recovering in the course of this century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:I don't think the total extinction of the human species would be appreciably different for the average individual from a total collapse of technological civilization. Point being, there is a very good chance of things going to really poo poo and never recovering in the course of this century. There is almost no chance of a "total collapse of technological civilization" occurring in the next century. At least not from Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Enjoy the electric life while you can, just don't have kids and realize whether you conserve or not you can't change what's gonna happen. Probably still gonna be a few humans living in caves in 1000 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is almost no chance of a "total collapse of technological civilization" occurring in the next century. At least not from Climate Change. You've convinced me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I think the important thing to remember is that even in a global apocalypse, someone's going to poo poo their pants and it will still be funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:You've convinced me. Oh I'm sorry, did you link a cite to support the idea humanity is going to lose access to technology? I missed it. effectual posted:Enjoy the electric life while you can, just don't have kids and realize whether you conserve or not you can't change what's gonna happen. Probably still gonna be a few humans living in caves in 1000 years. Please, what evidence do you have that loving electricity is going away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Biodiversity, barring some drastic global cultural changes, will definitely keep going down fast. Immediate human system instabilities will be regional, but teleconnected systems can have unpredictable reactions to change. Climate change induces increased unpredictability in agriculture, real estate (or equivalent tenure system), and generally every ecosystem service-reliant system. Short term impacts are likely to be reflected in fluctuating markets and product availability changes for most consumer countries. Sectoral or other manufacturing impacts are likely to occur for heavily water-reliant businesses, as well as any industries with outdoor activity as a primary driver (hotter people = less productive). Long-term drought leading to desertification is a serious concern in the medium term for numerous areas. The real fear, I think, is that economic and global food system instabilities will cause enough downward social mobility to kick up more dust in areas vulnerable to unrest, which could have many other subsequent effects. If militarization of civil affairs increases, at whatever level, it is unlikely that such systems will be able to deliver assistance in an efficient manner to the diverse cultural and social systems within a given nation (even if there was good knowledge to give). If areas are less aware, prepared, and knowledgeable about climate system changes and increased hazards, losses will likely be greater when extreme weather events occur. Since hazard profiles are changing for many areas, it is likely that losses from disaster events will increase in the near term - although, as those above have said, your personal chances of suffering such an event are highly inversely correlated with your distance from water, watersheds, and/or Oklahoma. (If you are in the US.) In the long-term? I think we could really seriously gently caress things up enough to start a real downward spiral in few decades, yeah. But that's been the case since the start. So, no big deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please, what evidence do you have that loving electricity is going away. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:We're running out of electrons. Pretty soon they'll all be gone. No prob, then. We just need to kill lots of things to get at that sweet carbon-14 beta decay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:How likely is near-term human extinction at this point? Unlikely. Humans are probably going to decline but a catastrophe would force us to make some major changes, we're actually remarkably adaptable, and we're also working on loving off to live on other planets. It's possible we peaked but extinction is probably not going to happen soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:10
|
|