|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
The world can shelter under my voluminous cotton trousers as I bestride the world like a colossus of old. This is one of my best page snipes.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
I often think that the world doesn't need fewer people - it needs people to be smaller. Imagine if everyone was say 50% of the size we are now. We'd need less resources to feed and shelter and clothe ourselves. Cars could be smaller and produce less pollution. More people could fit on the same size planes reducing ticket prices and the volume of air traffic. The benefits of this are literally endless and I do not see a downside, except some animals may become relatively more intimidating. But we can handle that. Come on gang. Lets shrink.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I often think that the world doesn't need fewer people - it needs people to be smaller. Shrink us further so I can ride cats to war and you've got my backing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Shrink me until my terminal velocity falls below my impact threshold of injury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Shrink us further so I can ride cats to war and you've got my backing. yeah the one problem with this, and it might be a big one, is that cats would then be able to eat us quite easily
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Cats would eventually eat us, after playing sadistically with us for about half an hour at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
feeding people to cats is something the Romans were ahead of the game on and to be honest I would like to see this brought back
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:alternately we could build a shitton of nuclear power plants and actually increase our energy use by a lot, and it would probably be both easier and cheaper then covering the entire Sahara with solar panels Nuclear fission is a process that requires mining, though. I fully agree we shouldn't be ignoring nuclear to the extent we are, but at the same time nuclear is a stopgap until we get either fission or cover the sahara in solar panels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Better the nuclear stop-gap than getting brutally owned by climate change, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Nuclear fission is a process that requires mining, though. I fully agree we shouldn't be ignoring nuclear to the extent we are, but at the same time nuclear is a stopgap until we get either fission or cover the sahara in solar panels. Uh, I mean, covering the sahara with solar panels requires rather a lot of mining as well, and they don't last forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Nuclear fission is a process that requires mining, though. I fully agree we shouldn't be ignoring nuclear to the extent we are, but at the same time nuclear is a stopgap until we get either fission or cover the sahara in solar panels. We could fish for uranium in filtered seawater and never run out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Uh, I mean, covering the sahara with solar panels requires rather a lot of mining as well, and they don't last forever. You don't need the intensely manufactured ones with rare earth metals or semiconductor fab facilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I've gone over the problem a lot, and discussed it with people who know about power generation a lot (some from these very forums), and honestly, if we don't go full nuclear and stop burning coal/oil like idiots, we're done as a civilization, it's as simple as that. There's not enough time for a magic fusion silver bullet (that in truth is not 100% a silver bullet, really), or advancing and using renewables in the amount necessary. Right now, we could just go full nuclear and that would solve the problem. Like, if we got our poo poo together as a species, we could do it right this very moment. We don't even need to wait for Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactors, modern uranium nuclear is more than good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The nice thing about the Saharan sun is that it's high enough W·m-2 that you can just have a bunch of mirrors and point them at a matte black thing full of water or low melting salt or whatever you want. Or hydrocarbons if you want to make fuel oils. I mean going by the American attempts in Nevada that's a very efficient method of making boilers on sticks explode and a limitless supply of cooked migratory birds but has difficulties in consistent power generation compared to solid state devices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:00
|
|
TomViolence posted:Cats would eventually eat us, after playing sadistically with us for about half an hour at least. That's Catipalism for ya.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean going by the American attempts in Nevada that's a very efficient method of making boilers on sticks explode and a limitless supply of cooked migratory birds but has difficulties in consistent power generation compared to solid state devices. Plus you're going to have to get that electricity/fuel out of the most isolated and inhospitable place on the planet and back to the first world, and also get the incomprehensible amount of building materials, workforce and maintenance crews required to said desert roughly comparable in size to the United States or China. We have the technology and the means and resources for nuclear power, we simply lack the will, both in where we build the plants and deal with the waste and to push for the state infrastructure spending required to make it work. I think the later two things are solvable problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:That's Catipalism for ya. Marx's lesser known but equally important work, I, Cat Pal
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean going by the American attempts in Nevada that's a very efficient method of making boilers on sticks explode and a limitless supply of cooked migratory birds but has difficulties in consistent power generation compared to solid state devices. The nice thing about pointing a ton of mirrors at a containment vessel is you can use it for more than just boiling water, you can heat salt up with it which then boils water elsewhere, which is a lot more controllable, or you can use it to heat up any reaction that requires a large source of heat, like the Haber process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Covering the Sahara with solar panels would kill the South American rainforests. Just a head up there. Kind of funny
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
If we're going absurd geoengineering projects I want a dam across the gibraltar strait. Yes I know that would turn the mediterranean into the dead sea. I don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I've gone over the problem a lot, and discussed it with people who know about power generation a lot (some from these very forums), and honestly, if we don't go full nuclear and stop burning coal/oil like idiots, we're done as a civilization, it's as simple as that. There's not enough time for a magic fusion silver bullet (that in truth is not 100% a silver bullet, really), or advancing and using renewables in the amount necessary. Right now, we could just go full nuclear and that would solve the problem. Like, if we got our poo poo together as a species, we could do it right this very moment. We don't even need to wait for Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactors, modern uranium nuclear is more than good enough. Asimov predicted this aaaages ago and- ah who are we kidding, politicians don't listen to scientists. They're experts, you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Covering the Sahara with solar panels would kill the South American rainforests. e: ^ We've had enough of experts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If we're going absurd geoengineering projects I want a dam across the gibraltar strait. Fun fact. 6 million years ago an earthquake did this, and the sea dried up, and then a bit later on another earthquake undammed it and a few dozen cubic kilometres of water flowed in every day for a hundred years Imagine if we had a pit that big available to us. We'd dig a thousand channels, dam them all, build industrial civilisation on the back of immense amounts of hydro power, spend centuries knowing it would run out but do nothing about it, then keel over when the sea filled up It'd be better then keeling over when we were finished filling up the atmosphere with carbon anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Put big solar panels in orbit. Massive gigantic wafer thin sail designs, and then send the power back to earth in huge devastating beam of heat and light to be captured by some doohicky and just hope it never gets misaligned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Fun fact. You know of all the massive engineering, geological and political problems to overcome with such a project I guarantee the thing that would scupper it would be people saying "You mean people will be able to walk from Africa to Europe?". Didn't that damming also cause a truly horrific amount of climate change?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:You know of all the massive engineering, geological and political problems to overcome with such a project I guarantee the thing that would scupper it would be people saying "You mean people will be able to walk from Africa to Europe?". I mean you can't exactly get rid of a sea and not expect it to massively effect the local climate
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
I'm sure Spain would put up giant chickenwire fences like they did at Ceuta and Melilla.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar are already at grid parity in huge chunks of the world. Solar in particular has come out of loving nowhere:  As much as I love nuclear, the future is solar. Yeah yeah base load, storage issues, etc etc - these are things that need fixing to replace all fossil fuels with renewables, but they're not roadblocks until renewables constitute a much higher fraction of a grid's production than they currently do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Gum posted:I mean you can't exactly get rid of a sea and not expect it to massively effect the local climate I'm sure I read it was more than local climate, and that it may have considerably lengthened the ice age because the existence of the Med drives a fair chunk of the climate north of the Himalayas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Fun fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar are already at grid parity in huge chunks of the world. Solar in particular has come out of loving nowhere: The future would indeed be solar, but for that you need a future in the first place and if we don't go nuclear first, there's not going to be a solar-power future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar are already at grid parity in huge chunks of the world. Solar in particular has come out of loving nowhere: Chinese subsidies worth tens of billions of USD isn't exactly nowhere, but yeah, the explosion in the growth of solar power has been stunning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Renewables would be the future if we had a future. Enjoy your preventable deaths, comrades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Nuclear is a renewable energy resource
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:Nuclear is a renewable energy resource Or at least if we run out of fuel for it and haven't figured out a solution by then something else has gone drastically wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:The future would indeed be solar, but for that you need a future in the first place and if we don't go nuclear first, there's not going to be a solar-power future. there is 400GW of nuclear installed globally. solar will probably hit that sometime next year, having been at basically zero ten years earlier
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:Nuclear is a renewable energy resource It's one of the least renewable energy sources in existence
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Netherlands is mostly flat, so there must be some strong winds? So how about invading, killing them all, and converting it all into one massive wind farm for the world. I'll take my Nobel Peace Prize in used 50 notes please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:there is 400GW of nuclear installed globally. solar will probably hit that sometime next year, having been at basically zero ten years earlier It also takes ~5 years to build a nuclear plant assuming you already have all of the permitting and everything else setup in advance along with a suitable location.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
happyhippy posted:Netherlands is mostly flat, so there must be some strong winds? Might have some issues if you're a bit slow off the mark and the sea levels rise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 23:02
|
|