|
Trabisnikof posted:Popular support was undeniably part of that equation. And as I keep repeating they're not mutually exclusive. Being a good climate citizen makes you a better citizen activist on coal. Where's this dataset?
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Getting rid of coal should be the primary focus. And natural gas is less polluting and not only in GHG ways. But, natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and still emits very large (but substantially less than coal) quantities of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Its not exactly a solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Getting rid of coal should be the primary focus. And natural gas is less polluting and not only in GHG ways. Natural gas isn't perfect, but it's a drat sight better than the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
The biggest issue with natural gas at the moment is in methane leakage from extraction. Getting off of coal is great and admirable, but it's not going to solve (or even drastically mitigate) the problem if we can't deal with the life cycle emissions issues. And that's without even getting into the other environmental and land use issues that come up with extraction. It's still better than nothing, but it's flat out wrong to point to the death of coal and say "welp, problem solved" if we can't do better with our replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
What are Arkanes thoughts on these matters I wonder
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The biggest issue with natural gas at the moment is in methane leakage from extraction. The lack of regulation of storage sites isn't the best, either. Nor the constant leaks along delivery pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:When a conversation is difficult or a problem intractable, that can be a sign of its importance. The conversation isn't difficult though, it's very very simple. That's why people get bored and start posting their weird apocalypse fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The biggest issue with natural gas at the moment is in methane leakage from extraction. Getting off of coal is great and admirable, but it's not going to solve (or even drastically mitigate) the problem if we can't deal with the life cycle emissions issues. And that's without even getting into the other environmental and land use issues that come up with extraction. It's still better than nothing, but it's flat out wrong to point to the death of coal and say "welp, problem solved" if we can't do better with our replacement. eNeMeE posted:The lack of regulation of storage sites isn't the best, either. Nor the constant leaks along delivery pipelines. According to academic literature, from a LCA perspective (and accounting for fugitive emissions), natural gas results in a GHG emissions rate that is 35% less than coal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
This article about desalination in Israel seems to be a bit of positive news, but I feel like something is being omitted: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_NEWS Anyone with more subject matter expertise want to take a crack at it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:This article about desalination in Israel seems to be a bit of positive news, but I feel like something is being omitted: That sounds super awesome actually. The only issue I can think of is cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Yeah, on second read my hunch is that it has to do with per capita water usage in Israel and specific climatic conditions, as well as subsidizing of desalination production or R&D costs due to Israel's "special relationship" with the US. The article doesnt delve deeper though, so I'll have to do some independent digging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
The issue of what to do with the salt is a growing one, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The issue of what to do with the salt is a growing one, as well. Is it? There are still heaps of industries that specifically evaporate water off to get the salt. At worst you bankrupt those business and start an advertising campaign to get people to add more salt to their food! What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Is it? There are still heaps of industries that specifically evaporate water off to get the salt. At worst you bankrupt those business and start an advertising campaign to get people to add more salt to their food! What could possibly go wrong? Well currently brine gets dumped back into the ocean and it's loving up the Gulf and Red Sea and longer term might mess up the Med too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Is it? There are still heaps of industries that specifically evaporate water off to get the salt. At worst you bankrupt those business and start an advertising campaign to get people to add more salt to their food! What could possibly go wrong? From what I understand the brine is usually too concentrated in other contaminants to be a useful source of sea salt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:According to academic literature, from a LCA perspective (and accounting for fugitive emissions), natural gas results in a GHG emissions rate that is 35% less than coal. No one is saying that we should stop using natural gas, it's just that right now it doesn't really represent a solution that can both replace coal and scale up to meet future power demands and emissions targets. Not without a ton more oversight to control life cycle emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Isn't there also the issue that nuclear can only provide baseline power, and renewables aren't reliable enough to meet sudden surges in demand?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
plushpuffin posted:Isn't there also the issue that nuclear can only provide baseline power, and renewables aren't reliable enough to meet sudden surges in demand? Baseload pretty much means, you can supply power whenever you want it. There can be very drastic changes in power demand that a nuclear power could not meet. Which is why every grid has gas turbine peaking plants or hydropower, both being able to respond very quickly to power output, we are talking less than a minute, but you only need very few peaking plants. The rest of the peak demand can be met by nuclear and power scaling up their output. But there is a lot of control in the output from a nuclear reactor (coal power too). If you wanted to run a nuclear reactor at 70% during off peak and scale it up to 100% during peak times, that is easily doable. But because the costs of a nuclear reactor are so disproportionalyl up front capital costs and the fuel cost is minuscule its pretty stupid to not run it at 100% all the time. Another option is to just run the reactor at 100% and route the power to water desalination if the grid doesn't need it. In short, we could very easily run our grid on 100% nuclear. Baseline is never a fault, its an amazingly awesome characteristic of a power producer. And renewables not being able to do that, is hardly ever costed into the holistic costs of electricity on a societal scale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Thanks, I remembered something about other plants being needed for spikes in demand, but couldn't remember the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Back when our nuclear power plant was still operational(Yup it was the good ol' RMBK...) power was simply balanced via this It's a very simple power storage solution when really cheap power is available.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
TheCoach posted:Back when our nuclear power plant was still operational(Yup it was the good ol' RMBK...) power was simply balanced via this Pumped storage has a very short lead time, Dinorwig Power Station can go from 0 to 1300 MW in 12 seconds. It sounds absurd that we need this kind of functionality but we really do. As an example, after the penalty shootout between England and someone else, everyone went to turn their kettles on that spiked the load by 2800 MW! That was an extreme event but there are often spikes in demand coincided with commercial breaks of popular tv shows, so there is at least a fair bit of predictability. I find it odd that they would stop using that storage plant. There is a huge change in the price of electricity on a daily basis between peak and off peak hours. As residential and even commercial users we don't see it. But for large energy traders and producers/consumers, the cost of electricity can vary up to 100 fold over just the course of one day, with it being effectively free between 3-5 am, et cetera. The thing is, its never feasible to shut down coal or nuclear power over night, so they idle them as best they can but even so, they produce more electricity than what we need, so it becomes super super cheap. Typically it makes sense to run the pumps on super cheap night time electricity and sell it off during peak times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Somewhat related Forbes did a piece on falling energy storage costs and how that may affect power generation in the near future. Basically the first use of utility scale batteries probably won't be to store renewable energy but rather to buffer traditional power plants so they can produce at a more constant and ideal rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Pumped storage has a very short lead time, Dinorwig Power Station can go from 0 to 1300 MW in 12 seconds. It sounds absurd that we need this kind of functionality but we really do. As an example, after the penalty shootout between England and someone else, everyone went to turn their kettles on that spiked the load by 2800 MW! That was an extreme event but there are often spikes in demand coincided with commercial breaks of popular tv shows, so there is at least a fair bit of predictability. It's still in use but it's original purpose was to complement the nuclear power station.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/05/11/india-bet-6-billion-carbon-storage-afforestation/#1cc949d9292e India is reportedly spending billions on reforestation to attempt to meet its climate obligations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/05/11/india-bet-6-billion-carbon-storage-afforestation/#1cc949d9292e I seriously don't trust these initiatives at all. They are good, no doubt. But who is going to enforce that those trees remain, trees. Also, fires are a thing. And finally, sure it acts as a carbon sink, but as long as fossil fuels are being burnt, India will continually have to plant more and more and more trees until? :/ Basically, doesn't actually address the core issue. No guarantee that carbon will stay in the trees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:And finally, sure it acts as a carbon sink, but as long as fossil fuels are being burnt, India will continually have to plant more and more and more trees until? :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
I think the question is more "Hello tree my fathers planted, you're fuel now."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:I would expect that if you plant a forest, it will later naturally store carbon as a dead organic matter in soil as it continually renews itself? As trees and new forests grow and develop, they draw in carbon from the atmosphere which then becomes trees and other organic matter. And they are a legitimate carbon sink. But, a mature forest reaches "steady state" and is generally carbon neutral, it draws in as much carbon from the atmosphere than is released from decaying organic matter. The major point is, for a new plot of land that you want to plant a forest on, there is a finite amount of carbon that can be stored within organic matter (trees and such) which will be reached, I don't know, 5-20 years or something? Potato Salad posted:I think the question is more "Hello tree my fathers planted, you're fuel now." Also, very much this. EDIT: Unless you want to consider timescales that allow for formation of coal and oil, which we really don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
In the timescale we're discussing, trees are pretty much carbon neutral. The bad news is that you can't really count them for sequestration. The good news is that burning them doesn't really matter that much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Fuuck. It's like something out of X-Files. Anthrax Outbreak In Russia Thought To Be Result Of Thawing Permafrost
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
I was raised in a Republican family and I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time. Man, they really did a thorough hack job on him. I grew up thinking he was a fringe lunatic but I found Al Gore a reasoned and thoughtful speaker. Is there anything in the movie that isn't accurate? There's a part in the film where he cherrypicks one study that says the consensus is 100% in favor of climate change and the number I hear everywhere else is 97%. So maybe that part isn't entirely fair? While I'm asking about the percent agreement on AGW and it's likely impact, where does that 3% contrarian come from? I've always just kind of assumed that coal and oil company money is buying them that much but more and more that'd be a huge number of flatly fraudulent papers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
LLSix posted:I was raised in a Republican family and I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time. Man, they really did a thorough hack job on him. I grew up thinking he was a fringe lunatic but I found Al Gore a reasoned and thoughtful speaker. It's broadly accurate. Just remember he's a politician, not a climate scientist. Refuting every single point in the movie would have no bearing on whether anthropomorphic climate change is a real phenomena or not. Edit: TildeATH posted:Anthropogenic, you idiot. lol spellcheck hosed me. Bates fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
LLSix posted:While I'm asking about the percent agreement on AGW and it's likely impact, where does that 3% contrarian come from? I've always just kind of assumed that coal and oil company money is buying them that much but more and more that'd be a huge number of flatly fraudulent papers. Having research funded by the fossil fuels industry is a thing, but there's also just a small collection of wingnuts with PhDs on most every topic within a given discipline. For example, there are a handful of geologists who actually believe that oil isn't formed from organic material.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
LLSix posted:I was raised in a Republican family and I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time. Man, they really did a thorough hack job on him. I grew up thinking he was a fringe lunatic but I found Al Gore a reasoned and thoughtful speaker. He was referencing the paper published by Naomi Oreskes, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Which can be found here. (Possible pay wall) But sure you can find many articles written about it. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/306/5702/1686.full.pdf quote:The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimat analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Its old now and there has been an updated version with no change if I recall correctly. I think that 97% number comes from "surveys" which can be ignored because surveys are stupid. As in stupid when you have a detailed analysis of the peer reviewed literature and choose to use results from a survey instead. It was a very long time ago since I saw it, I remember his message being broadly consistent with the science and appropriate for the level he was pitching at. As in, very simplified. So super easy to make criticisms of what he said, based on the simplifications. Cannot escape that he is a politician and his ultimate goal was surely political. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:his ultimate goal was surely political. What exactly does that mean? The last election he ran in was 2000 and this came out in 2006.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What exactly does that mean? The last election he ran in was 2000 and this came out in 2006. You don't have to be running for office to say something with political intent. If Gore's intent was "political", his intent was to provoke a political reaction, even if it would not promote his own career.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What exactly does that mean? The last election he ran in was 2000 and this came out in 2006. His goal was to encourage and enable political action in regards to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
LLSix posted:I was raised in a Republican family and I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time. Man, they really did a thorough hack job on him. I grew up thinking he was a fringe lunatic but I found Al Gore a reasoned and thoughtful speaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6X2uwlQGQM
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Anos posted:It's broadly accurate. Just remember he's a politician, not a climate scientist. Refuting every single point in the movie would have no bearing on whether anthropomorphic climate change is a real phenomena or not. Anthropogenic, you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:Anthropogenic, you idiot. Maybe the furries/otherkin/etc have just gotten even weirder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:46
|
|