|
Morbus posted:I think you will have a hard time showing that nuclear plants are expensive from a total cost perspective. Most attempts to measure the levelized cost of electricity generation show nuclear as being comparable to coal. Yeah, this is kind of the issue, and the problem with privatized energy generation: We already know that the cheapest energy sources are generally not the cleanest, and arguing that something is expensive ergo its not worth the effort is laughable. Frankly, at this point, Energy companies NEED to be required to invest in expensive, but low carbon footprint, projects. Because they've spent forever loving us over with "Cheap and available"
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Chadzok posted:Bold whole article. Terrifying. The Carbon Bubble argument is very misleading. Right now if the "Carbon Bubble" pops, we die. Not humanity as a whole, but a huge chunk of it. There isn't enough power sources available without burning fossil fuels at the rate we do currently to support the resources that keep even huge chunks of third world populations alive (let alone first). Therefore if it ever reaches the point where the bubble pops, at least not without decades of action taken to mitigate the problem (at which point we'd still probably have to burn fossil fuels for transportation), it's just going to be entirely propped up or fully taken over by Governments until we reach the point where it's too late and humanity is actually in a extinction event. Not really arguing with the general point about needing change but the whole idea of a Carbon Bubble, while maybe true in theory, basically depends on a pipe dream scenario where somehow an economic market can crash but not result in a situation where the world just decides to let billions (actual billions) of people die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Morbus posted:I think you will have a hard time showing that nuclear plants are expensive from a total cost perspective. Most attempts to measure the levelized cost of electricity generation show nuclear as being comparable to coal. I've never really seen a great breakdown of the costs to operate a Nuclear plant in those formulas to see if they include all the costs external to the plant. Like the leveled costs generally include getting material to a plant, but Nuclear plants have to account for shipping material out of the plant and waste storage. Nuclear Plants often have a larger footprint than other plants (at least over fossil fuel plants, not sure about solar or wind farms), so any taxes and costs associated with land are more expensive, but that isn't something that can be easily factored in to those values. So on and so forth. And the very points you make factor into a total cost of ownership figure. Sunk and opportunity costs do actually matter which I count as part of a total cost of ownership for the life of the plant, at least in the current business environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
nessin posted:I've never really seen a great breakdown of the costs to operate a Nuclear plant in those formulas to see if they include all the costs external to the plant. Like the leveled costs generally include getting material to a plant, but Nuclear plants have to account for shipping material out of the plant and waste storage. Nuclear Plants often have a larger footprint than other plants (at least over fossil fuel plants, not sure about solar or wind farms), so any taxes and costs associated with land are more expensive, but that isn't something that can be easily factored in to those values. So on and so forth. MW/Acre, Nuclear Plants have an extremely small footprint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:MW/Acre, Nuclear Plants have an extremely small footprint. And deaths/TWH. the most important number of all!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:MW/Acre, Nuclear Plants have an extremely small footprint. Do you have a source? I've seen several but few that actually compare plant sizes. For example: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12433/full Notes that Nuclear is insanely smaller than everything, but its counting mining operations in with actual plant land use. But from my understanding a Nuclear plant, the actual plant itself, generally has a larger land footprint (not actual building size) due to the additional security requirements for the material handling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
nessin posted:Do you have a source? I've seen several but few that actually compare plant sizes. For example: Uranium Mines are actually generally very small. Compared to coal and natural gas mining, nuclear mining is a drop in the bucket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:This makes sense - conservation type things should make for great conservative issues because they often boil down to protecting the status quo from unwanted change and/or putting things back to how they were in the past. It's literally in the name. That's perhaps one reason why they're still so invested in saying it isn't happening, or that it isn't our fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
nessin posted:The Carbon Bubble argument is very misleading. Right now if the "Carbon Bubble" pops, we die. Not humanity as a whole, but a huge chunk of it. There isn't enough power sources available without burning fossil fuels at the rate we do currently to support the resources that keep even huge chunks of third world populations alive (let alone first). Therefore if it ever reaches the point where the bubble pops, at least not without decades of action taken to mitigate the problem (at which point we'd still probably have to burn fossil fuels for transportation), it's just going to be entirely propped up or fully taken over by Governments until we reach the point where it's too late and humanity is actually in a extinction event. You're probably right about the bailout theory.. which is somehow even more terrifying when you realise how much banks were able to twist arms to turn that whole situation to their advantage. The oil/gas league could probably either use it as one last big payday or use the market panic to try and revert the trend and enshrine fossil fuels as an economic necessity. Even as the train is going off the cliff, world governments will probably have to rapidly lay down wooden shanty tracks to let it build up more speed. I think saying that "the Carbon Bubble argument is very misleading" is poor choice of words though. The rest of your post seems to acknowledge it could very well end up being accurate - I'll have to read the article again but I don't think he really delved into the aftermath of a bursting bubble as you've attempted. Thanks for making it even worse. To look at it more optimistically, a public takeover of oil/gas companies could lead to the required decades of mitigation and transition to renewables (lol yeah sure buddy).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
nessin posted:The Carbon Bubble argument is very misleading. Right now if the "Carbon Bubble" pops, we die. Not humanity as a whole, but a huge chunk of it. There isn't enough power sources available without burning fossil fuels at the rate we do currently to support the resources that keep even huge chunks of third world populations alive (let alone first). Therefore if it ever reaches the point where the bubble pops, at least not without decades of action taken to mitigate the problem (at which point we'd still probably have to burn fossil fuels for transportation), it's just going to be entirely propped up or fully taken over by Governments until we reach the point where it's too late and humanity is actually in a extinction event. I find this to be a really poor rebuttal. What evidence do you have that fossil fuels can't be replaced by solar in the 3rd world -- especially since there's very little installed infrastructure? Show me that Nigeria, an extremely sun-rich country with low installed base of coal and oil power generation, cannot shift to solar for new power installs. (Pumping it out of the ground is not the same as having refined oil and the infrastructure to use it.) The thesis of the article is that wealthy oil and coal concerns derive their financial value from expected future earnings. This is true of assets that have returns generally, so it's certainly true of oil and coal assets. You really haven't addressed that point at all much less refuted it. Your analysis of "governments" doesn't say much. Which governments will subsidize fossil fuel companies? Maybe Brazil, Canada, Russia, the US? There aren't even that many nations that have extensive oil and gas reserves? What makes you think there will be public appetite for bailouts of Exxon Mobil in response to climate action laws? Doesn't that sound mutually exclusive? So, in your scenario, governments are both taking drastic action to cut carbon worldwide, and bailing out beleaguered oil companies when their stock prices plummet? In order to keep the oil flowing, which they just passed laws to stop from flowing? Governments both heavily taxing and heavily subsidizing fossil fuels? Because of third world countries? Which countries? Why isn't solar competitive in these countries over the next few decades? I'm on the side of financial markets caring about future returns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Things are looking up...quote:Scientists at institutions in the United States and Australia on Friday published a set of unprecedented ocean observations near the largest glacier of the largest ice sheet in the world: Totten glacier, East Antarctica. And the result was a troubling confirmation of what scientists already feared - Totten is melting from below. quote:These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.  Oh, also I guess there's the Arctic sea ice death spiral... Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
From that graph, the maximum sea ice extent in 2016 is clearly lower than the minimum extent used to be (which is terrifying). But most plots on arctic sea ice extent don't show the same thing. Is this something to do with e.g. measuring the area if sea ice vs. volume?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Morbus posted:From that graph, the maximum sea ice extent in 2016 is clearly lower than the minimum extent used to be (which is terrifying). But most plots on arctic sea ice extent don't show the same thing. Is this something to do with e.g. measuring the area if sea ice vs. volume? Yeah so there are 3 common measures: Extent, which is the 2D area enclosed by the border of ice/ocean(or land) Area, which is the 2D area enclosed by the border times the fill factor in each pixel within the border. Volume, which is the 3D volume of the ice. So for extent, when the pixel shows 15% or 20% ice for example, its counted as 100% ice. Area tries to be more precise here, but there are always measurement issues - pooling water and clouds can screw up the measurements. Volume is probably the most important but hardest to measure. Signals from the satellites are rapidly attenuated as they travel through volumes of ice so the noise in the measurement is greater. Volume is important because surface freezing depends on a combination of air and ocean temperature, but gaining volume only depends on sea temperature. Warm upwells in the arctic can 'stealth' melt the ice from the bottom, leading to surprises when the surface ice melts and reveals nothing below. The volume measurement problem is kind of solving itself though, the only place anymore with large thickness is just north of Canada, so we can easily estimate everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Just to add how important volume is: In the spiral graph you can see how long ago all the months were pretty close together. They didn't change much in the summer. That's because in the ice pack the volume of the main pack was so great that the thin ice making up the changing seasonal extent was only a small portion of the total ice volume. Now that the volume of the main pack is gone, the seasonal variation of the extent coming and going is apparent. Basically, the more seasonal variation of the volume - the more of the pack that is made up of thin surface ice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
This thread is probably the most depressing thing I've ever read. Irreversible destruction of life, denial and manipulation that it isn't happening from short term thugs. Someone cheer me up, I keep switching back and forth between having nihilistic gallows humour about the whole thing to heart broken manic depression. I like this world, for better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:This thread is probably the most depressing thing I've ever read. Irreversible destruction of life, denial and manipulation that it isn't happening from short term thugs. The world's littered with the bones of civilizations that thought they would last forever. Ours is the latest on the queue. Do what good you can in the present-term, don't have kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:The world's littered with the bones of civilizations that thought they would last forever. Ours is the latest on the queue. Alternatively, have kids. They will not only give your life a sense of purpose and happiness, but you can also raise them to be good stewards of their surrounding and maybe, just maybe they will help the next civilization not make the same mistakes we did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Alternatively, have kids. They will not only give your life a sense of purpose and happiness, but you can also raise them to be good stewards of their surrounding and maybe, just maybe they will help the next civilization not make the same mistakes we did. Having kids to give your life purpose is the worst loving reason to have them. Also, if you want kids, adopt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I didn't say have kids 'to' give your life purpose, just that it will. If someone wants to have children then they should. Kids are totally great, and adoption is also great. The nihilist commentary that rears it's head in this thread over and over again to not have kids is the dumbest poo poo ever though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Have kids, lots of them, and raise them to be road warrior cannibals. They deserve a good future
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
oops
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Alternatively, have kids. They will not only give your life a sense of purpose and happiness, but you can also raise them to be good stewards of their surrounding and maybe, just maybe they will help the next civilization not make the same mistakes we did. We've been through this several times in this thread: having children can never result in "good stewards of their surroundings"; the best they can do is be less terrible ravagers of the environment than their peers. Having children is categorically a bad thing for the world. The "next civilization" can't make the same mistakes that we did, since the resources required to create a destructive civilization like ours will not exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Unless your goal as an environmentalist is the extinction of the human race then kids are categorically a good thing for humanity. The human population has already hit peak child so any population growth is pretty much baked in at this point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with humanity having a neutral replacement rate which is where we already are. If on the other hand you want humanity to end then well we aren't going to see eye to eye. I'd rather humanity fix its problems as opposed to just loving earth and then bankrupting out via extinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:I didn't say have kids 'to' give your life purpose, just that it will. If someone wants to have children then they should. Kids are totally great, and adoption is also great. Yea advocating for not having kids is automatically nihilism lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
So I ask again, how the hell can anyone do anything knowing this sort of thing and not want to immediately hang themselves? I've gotten to the point where everything sounds pointless and I can't convince my therapist to go beyond "Things will work out!"- Only resort is drugs but if civilization collapses those will go as well. I'm hoping every day that I die in a painless accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Get angry, stay angry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Yea advocating for not having kids is automatically nihilism lmao. Yeah, nihilists are a bit more realistic than anyone that thinks not having kids is gonna do a thing to help the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah, nihilists are a bit more realistic than anyone that thinks not having kids is gonna do a thing to help the planet. Having a kid is probably the single most important thing you can do to raise your carbon emissions. Sorry, its just the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So I ask again, how the hell can anyone do anything knowing this sort of thing and not want to immediately hang themselves? I've gotten to the point where everything sounds pointless and I can't convince my therapist to go beyond "Things will work out!"- Only resort is drugs but if civilization collapses those will go as well. I'm hoping every day that I die in a painless accident. Humanity will probably survive. The world will change. We have made it through devestating scenarios before. None on this scale, but then we have never had this much power. Theres not much hope to avoid climate change, but then there never really was much hope to overcome human nature. As always, choose to find joy and meaning in the fight itself. Do you really just plan to give up? To let the assholes that did this too us, hiding in their private enclaves, inherit the earth? No! Everyone who is born will someday die, and our civilization is no different. Doesnt mean there is any benefit in rushing oblivion or choosing to exit early - just like with life, you cant choose not to die, but you can choose what your death means. Fight to your last breath for a loss thats not quite so devestating as it could be. Its all you ever really had anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Having a kid is probably the single most important thing you can do to raise your carbon emissions. And killing yourself is the quickest and most effective way to reduce it. Are you going to argue mass suicide is a something we should pursue and advocate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
I don't care about vengeance. I don't care about fighting. I don't care about doing anything with minimal impact just for the "at least I did SOMETHING" value. I don't get involved in fights I am not 100% sure I can win. I care about results. I care about is the life I was promised: That of doing what I am told in a safe environment and be compensated progressively more for it, hopefully with someone I can care for and have meaningful cultural discussions with. None of that is possible in the world that is coming. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:And killing yourself is the quickest and most effective way to reduce it. Are you going to argue mass suicide is a something we should pursue and advocate? Not having a kid, or just having less kids, is a teensy bit different from hanging yourself in the shed unless you think condoms have resulted in an unimaginable genocide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Let's compromise: you're allowed to have one kid for every capitalist you remove from the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Fair. You can have another kid for 100,000$ net worth of person you remove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Not having a kid, or just having less kids, is a teensy bit different from hanging yourself in the shed unless you think condoms have resulted in an unimaginable genocide. Yeah having a kid could at least be potentially seen as a selfless and morally motivated act, while your continued existence is a selfish cancer without the slightest shred of morality to support it (unless you are heavily invested in politics or advocacy or green tech, in that case please dont kill yourself and keep trying to save the planet instead)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Let's compromise: you're allowed to have one kid for every capitalist you remove from the game. What if our kids remove the capitalists. Too late, or does it still count?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
I have never understood how its either selfless or moral to have a kid, unless your genes are not a part of your self. In the modern world its at best neutral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I don't care about vengeance. I don't care about fighting. I don't care about doing anything with minimal impact just for the "at least I did SOMETHING" value. I don't get involved in fights I am not 100% sure I can win. I care about results. I care about is the life I was promised: That of doing what I am told in a safe environment and be compensated progressively more for it, hopefully with someone I can care for and have meaningful cultural discussions with. None of that is possible in the world that is coming. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but what you want wouldn't be guaranteed even if we could snap our fingers and solve climate change instantly. Maybe the real issue here is that you have unrealistic expectations about life in general?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't be guaranteed but at least it would have a REASONABLE chance, as opposed to nil. To put it another way, I don't want to have to fight, hurt people or perform extensive physical labor to survive. I don't even exercise (apart from a daily 30 min walk) or cook, for crying out loud. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I don't care about doing anything with minimal impact just for the "at least I did SOMETHING" value. I don't get involved in fights I am not 100% sure I can win. I care about results. I care about is the life I was promised: That of doing what I am told in a safe environment and be compensated progressively more for it, hopefully with someone I can care for and have meaningful cultural discussions with. None of that is possible in the world that is coming. None of this was ever possible, at any point in history, and the lovely attitude and fantastical delusions are honestly probably a greater contributor to your unwillingness to go on than climate change is. Seek psychiatric help? Not willing to fight unless you have a guaranteed win, fuckin lol. I think i can support what others have said in regards to you, personally, not having kids, at least not with that kind of attitude. The only certainty in life is death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:21
|
|