|
Radbot posted:I gotta disagree here. I just replaced my 15 year old car with a new economy car - it's loving awesome. Please don't tell me that not having to wait by the side of the road for AAA doesn't bring me happiness. I think you completely missed the car point. A major issue is people replacing massive, inefficient vehicles very frequently; every few years or sometimes even every year. That and people owning more cars than people living in the household. Why do 3 people need 6 cars? They loving don't. Besides replacing a 15 year old car with a new, economic model actually makes sense. You're now using less fuel. Good for you. The issue is the short-term feely goodies from getting a new model. They don't last. You got that too when you bought a new car guaranteed but your lifestyle improved because you traded an old, worn out thing that did, in fact, need replaced with one that was newer and in better condition. The car industry keeps telling people to buy buy BUY BUY BUY!!!! Inefficiency doesn't matter THERE IS PROFIT TO MAKE!
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So literally any action the people of earth could do wouldn't be seen in a positive light by you because we can't undo the sins of the past? Climate change can't be "reversed" even if all carbon emissions stopped today. The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. Progress towards and cooperation on a solution is good and necessary but at the end of the day there is a scale, and CO2 weighs more than 'institutional alignment.' What we're doing now needed to happen two decades ago, and we haven't faced the reality that we're very, very, very far behind where we need to be at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. I agree with what you're saying but semantically it isn't exactly a physics problem because the physics have been solved. That is; there isn't a physics question any longer when talking about global warming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. But all of what you said has little impact on reality (I agree with a lot of it). Sure, we should be in a better place, but we're not. So when people declare that any policy action less than perfection isn't meaningful because of the scale of the problem, it isn't exactly a helpful comment and could even make further positive policy action less likely. For example, idiots declaring Paris a fraud because it didn't do the impossible doesn't increase the chance of a working global climate treaty. If anything, the constant cry that nothing is working and there's nothing to do only worsens things. There seems to be this idea that somehow it is better to do X first and then handle climate change in our post-X world. I dont think there is time for such delays. We have to address climate change within the existing frameworks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I think you completely missed the car point. A major issue is people replacing massive, inefficient vehicles very frequently; every few years or sometimes even every year. That and people owning more cars than people living in the household. Why do 3 people need 6 cars? They loving don't. Ah this logic again. Yes, when a new car comes into existence (bought new) it pollutes a lot. That being said, when I bought my new vehicle, I didn't smash my old one. I've never heard of anyone throwing out a running car except in cases like cash for clunkers, which is different. gently caress it, though, make like Mackelmore and buy a moped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There seems to be this idea that somehow it is better to do X first and then handle climate change in our post-X world. I dont think there is time for such delays. We have to address climate change within the existing frameworks. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 14:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Verge posted:Ah this logic again. Yes, when a new car comes into existence (bought new) it pollutes a lot. That being said, when I bought my new vehicle, I didn't smash my old one. I've never heard of anyone throwing out a running car except in cases like cash for clunkers, which is different. You're focusing on a very small part of his post. The primary point was that the temporary thrill of getting a new car fades, pretty quickly, and people who buy a new car for the sake of having a new car quickly want a different one. Buying a new car when your current one is only a few years old doesn't actually improve your quality of life. Obviously if you have a 15 year old clunker and you need to drive often, a new car will improve your quality of life. I don't believe anyone said to "just buy a moped." Obviously for many cities, you need a car unless you live in a neighborhood where many things are walking distance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:You're focusing on a very small part of his post. The primary point was that the temporary thrill of getting a new car fades, pretty quickly, and people who buy a new car for the sake of having a new car quickly want a different one. Buying a new car when your current one is only a few years old doesn't actually improve your quality of life. Obviously if you have a 15 year old clunker and you need to drive often, a new car will improve your quality of life. If this is just about quality of life, yeah, get a new car only if your current car sucks...but then I'd recommend a newer used car. Regardless, I thought he was talking about the environmental impact of car manufacture as Prius contenders so often do. The moped thing is a joke, sorry. Mackelmore, the singer, said buy one. But they are more eco friendly than any gas car, when they apply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Verge posted:The moped thing is a joke, sorry. Mackelmore, the singer, said buy one. But they are more eco friendly than any gas car, when they apply. Actually, on a non-carbon emissions basis mopeds are often far under regulated for emission controls. Which just brings up the problem that sadly even climate change isn't our only environmental disaster occurring so our decisio making is complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, on a non-carbon emissions basis mopeds are often far under regulated for emission controls. Which just brings up the problem that sadly even climate change isn't our only environmental disaster occurring so our decisio making is complicated. Far less regulated but the major manufacturers (Vespa and Piaggio) offer mopeds that meet the emissions standards for full-size motorcycles. Further, at 100mpg actual no matter how you ride it, the point that most of the environmental damage from gasoline is done prior to ignition becomes incredibly noteworthy. poo poo, I've considered getting one and my primary vehicle is a medium sized motorcycle. Further, I'll point out that I'm more concerned with greenhouse gasses than aerosol toxins at this time. Not to dismiss your point at all. Note: of course I realize the real goal is to end our addiction to oil and catching poo poo on fire outright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Verge posted:Far less regulated but the major manufacturers (Vespa and Piaggio) offer mopeds that meet the emissions standards for full-size motorcycles. Further, at 100mpg actual no matter how you ride it, the point that most of the environmental damage from gasoline is done prior to ignition becomes incredibly noteworthy. poo poo, I've considered getting one and my primary vehicle is a medium sized motorcycle. Further, I'll point out that I'm more concerned with greenhouse gasses than aerosol toxins at this time. Not to dismiss your point at all. Unfortunately, from a smog perspective motorcycles aren't really good either. For example, there are no US federal Nox standards on motorcycles older than 2006. There are many communities where smog is such a big problem that from a summation of all risks perspective it should actually factor into decision-making. But yeah, my more general point was just the challenge of remembering to include all our other critical environmental needs when considering climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But all of what you said has little impact on reality (I agree with a lot of it). Sure, we should be in a better place, but we're not. So when people declare that any policy action less than perfection isn't meaningful because of the scale of the problem, it isn't exactly a helpful comment and could even make further positive policy action less likely. The problem with only addressing climate change within our existing framework is that the framework is the reason we can't get anything done on climate change, and why climate change is a problem in the first place. The fact that corporations can externalize pollution and that our economic system values profit over people's livelihood, health, and the environment is why we have so many problems. That corporations and the rich have such hugely disproportional sway on politics and law prevents even moderate steps from being taken on every level of government. We need to address climate change within the existing framework as we work to change the framework. We need to make what changes we can now AND do "X"--and doing both will help make progress in combating climate change by making it easier to pass laws or change regulations or establish green programs. For example, passing a law that strictly regulates corporate lobbying will make it easier to pass environmental regulations. Building a strong movement fighting for labor rights and higher wages means you have a large, organized, now politically active body of people who can also put their efforts towards fighting for environmental regulations. The important part is to link all these struggles, and make sure that no important issue gets left behind. What is most effective, I think, is starting where people are already mobilized, and building that momentum into a broader struggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You're acting like there's no tradeoff value to saving for retirement. If we genuinely believe that retirement will be structurally impossible at recommended rates of saving (say 10% of income when starting in early 20s, which is VASTLY more than most people actually save), then the rational course of action is to spend that money now. It's darkly amusing that your response to the fear that pollution and anthropogenic climate change will destroy everything we hold dear is to get on the internet and say "Oh man I'm gonna consumeconsumeconsume and pollute so much while I still can!" and then try to convince everyone else that destroying the earth as hard as possible is the smart thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I've always thought we need nuclear to get through this as renewables' intermittency and the cost of storage solutions is too big a hurdle to get over without backup. Guardian just released a report on storage developments in the UK and globally and it looks interesting Not sure what it means regarding the cost vs. nuclear debate though: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 Can anyone tell me what they mean when they say 'a 10MW storage facility'? Is that 10MWh or what? e: hot drat, world's largest windfarm off Yorkshire coast: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 Anyone have a good article or two on the criticisms of offshore wind? It's all over the press here but hard to find a balanced view. El Grillo fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I've always thought we need nuclear to get through this as renewables' intermittency and the cost of storage solutions is too big a hurdle to get over without backup. Guardian just released a report on storage developments in the UK and globally and it looks interesting Not sure what it means regarding the cost vs. nuclear debate though: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 quote:e: hot drat, world's largest windfarm off Yorkshire coast: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 good: *no NIMBY whining *wind is not quite as ludicrously variable at sea (though still more than enough to necessitate storage) *doesn't take up land *often bigger, so can use stronger high winds bad: *more expensive & harder to maintain *may or may not have damaging effects on seabirds, whales and fish and stuff. some case studies and circumstantial evidence for or against exists, but nothing coherent *takes up seabed habitat
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I've always thought we need nuclear to get through this as renewables' intermittency and the cost of storage solutions is too big a hurdle to get over without backup. Guardian just released a report on storage developments in the UK and globally and it looks interesting Not sure what it means regarding the cost vs. nuclear debate though: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 So...the batteries issue isn't as big an issue as people think it is, depending on climate. If the day/night cycle is your problem, it's not nearly as bad as, say, clouds. People use tremendously less energy at night. The big issue is that your system has to be capable of heating homes in steady -5 C weather for weeks on end while it may be an absolute excess come summer time. Obviously you can fire up a backup plant but doing that regularly can get...stupid... It should be noted that batteries are used (albeit far less) even in grids using coal power. Ever worked fast food? Y'know how it's like hours of customers trickling in then all a sudden a stampede? Electrical demand is just like that. Just to be clear: nuclear plants totally need batteries or you waste an assload of fuel during off hours because like solar during sunshine, nuclear cores can't be flipped off to save fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Here's a hint to the future grid planners among us: it is almost always unwise to build out any single generation technology to match a peak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Verge posted:Just to be clear: nuclear plants totally need batteries or you waste an assload of fuel during off hours because like solar during sunshine, nuclear cores can't be flipped off to save fuel. Conversely, it was my understanding that cloud cover isn't that big a deal for solar, in that on average 80% of the energy comes through anyway. Although that wouldn't mitigate the potential outlier scenario where you get very heavy cloud cover for days or weeks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Note: nuclear is increasingly load-following.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Genuinely didn't know there were large-scale storage solutions in operation already. vOv Lots of hydro was built at the same time as nuclear to balance it out. Modern designs are easier to regulate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Lots of hydro was built at the same time as nuclear to balance it out. Modern designs are easier to regulate. Huh? I think you're mistaking the scale of the grid. While outage lengths are a major concern for nuclear power operator, we didn't build hydro to offset nuclear in the US. Instead you just fire up a coal plant or a few gas plants when the nuke calls and says they tripped off and will be down for a month. Sure, hydro might be used to directly respond to the trip, but that's iso dependent and more the reaction the grid operator takes whenever they lose 1GW instantly. Be it a nuke or a coal plant going down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Genuinely didn't know there were large-scale storage solutions in operation already. vOv As an Oregonian, I may have a bias regarding my view of clouds. You're probably right. blowfish posted:Note: nuclear is increasingly load-following. ...what? How in the gently caress? By load-following, just to be clear, you mean we use more or less fuel depending on how much is needed? How in the gently caress can you do that? Can you source this please? Alternatively, maybe I completely misunderstand you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Verge posted:As an Oregonian, I may have a bias regarding my view of clouds. You're probably right. Load following meaning being able to change the output % of the reactor at all to match demand. Most nuclear reactor designs basically make it non-trivial/impossible to go from 60% -> 100% -> 60% all in 24 hours. France has been experimenting and operating their reactors in ways that are flexible like that. I personally haven't read much about the real world pros and cons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Depending on the type of reactor, putting the reactor's energy output to different uses could help solve the problem of change loads. LFTRs, for example, run at high temperatures that are great for making fuel or desalinizing water. During peak hours, you drop fuel production. During low-use hours, put it to work doing the other things. There's a lot of interesting storage options that aren't using traditional portable battery technology that has obvious limitations. This talk shows a neat battery design that uses common (so, cheap) metals that could scale to grid level and deal with a lot of the problems that grid-level storage runs into. Beyond that, pumped storage is in use in other countries, molten salt stores thermal energy on solar plants, and other options like flywheels could work. Once again, the biggest problem for any of this is not the technological hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I'm in the dump iron in the ocean boat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Ah gotcha then. I thought the claim was being made that someone found out a way to 'shovel some more coal on the fire' with hot-rock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Despera posted:I'm in the dump iron in the ocean boat. Man, I was super into iron fertilization in the early 2000s, but I think all the scale research has been really disappointing. Like Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 levels of bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Despera posted:I'm in the dump iron in the ocean boat. This was covered briefly in the last thread, but a poster who was involved in research relating to that made a big post on why it was a bad idea. If I remember correctly, the summary is it doesn't do much for carbon uptake and it can screw up the ecosystem. Also, the effects of climate change on the ocean are already going to cause large problems due to changing ocean temperatures and acidity. The biggest problem with any geoengineering scheme is that it's going to introduce unforeseen side-effects, some of which may be catastrophic. Edit: Here's a nice article about iron fertilization effects Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Article says the scales have been a joke. The problem of not geo engineering is waiting centuries for the earth to fix itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Despera posted:Article says the scales have been a joke. The problem of not geo engineering is waiting centuries for the earth to fix itself. Geoengineering doesn't fix the fundamental problem of climate change, nor its source, it only delays some of the consequences. Do you have any evidence that shows iron fertilization is a good idea, with the benefits outweighing the costs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Geoengineering doesn't fix the fundamental problem of climate change, nor its source, it only delays some of the consequences. Do you have any evidence that shows iron fertilization is a good idea, with the benefits outweighing the costs? The problem is mitigation won't undo the damage of climate change either. As much as people don't want to hear it, but geoengineering is inevitable just not a panacea either. Look at it this way, we're already engaged in geoengineering, just without any planning or intentionality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem is mitigation won't undo the damage of climate change either. As much as people don't want to hear it, but geoengineering is inevitable just not a panacea either. I gotta agree with ya there. Everyone's got this hands-off attitude toward nature, as if not loving with it will keep everything going. We're already loving with it big time. Yeah, sometimes we'll make entire species' go extinct trying to help another but I think with just a bit of practice, a hands-on, fully engaged approach will be the most successful. We can't be afraid to get our hands dirty, not when they're covered in blood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Verge posted:...what? How in the gently caress? By load-following, just to be clear, you mean we use more or less fuel depending on how much is needed? How in the gently caress can you do that? Can you source this please? Alternatively, maybe I completely misunderstand you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:What makes you so skeptical? Why are fission plants unable to throttle quickly? Isn't that what inhibitors/control rods are basically for? Xenon poisoning is a big reason why most nuclear plants can't throttle like that. No plant in the US is load following afaik. Also designing power plants that work equally efficiently across their power range means it won't be as efficient at 100% power. Nuclear plants are so expensive they only make sense if you can operate at 100% as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But all of what you said has little impact on reality (I agree with a lot of it). Sure, we should be in a better place, but we're not. So when people declare that any policy action less than perfection isn't meaningful because of the scale of the problem, it isn't exactly a helpful comment and could even make further positive policy action less likely. I'm not talking about perfect policy. You can't policy away physics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I'm not talking about perfect policy. You can't policy away physics. No one is disagreeing with your pithy remark, just pointing out that we should consider actual policy change, acceleration in policy change and changes in policy momentum when attempting to predict the change of policy over time. The outcome of Paris was a good thing, not because it cured climate change, but because it achieved some of the necessary but insufficient things required. Even Mckibben, someone I'm not always in agreement, said "this didn't save the planet but it may have saved the chance of saving the planet."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Xenon poisoning is a big reason why most nuclear plants can't throttle like that. No plant in the US is load following afaik. All current designs can, though, even big clumsy 1.6GW French Surrender Reactors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:All current designs can, though, even big clumsy 1.6GW French Surrender Reactors. You're right that all modern designs can, I'm just not sure about if older designs can within their licensing requirements. edit: in the US that is Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're right that all modern designs can, I'm just not sure about if older designs can within their licensing requirements. I bet the vast majority can't in the US, but that vast majority is a minority of US electricity generation that will probably never exceed baseload so all the throttling can be done by more modern non-poo poo power plants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
[Wait I said wrong poo poo hang on.] I forgot that there is more than 1 rock and broke my brain. Disregard previous statements and consult another nuke. Verge fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:50
|
|