|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah but you seem to think it is a bad thing rather than the natural result of nuclear's poor fit to the task. You're right that clean energy growth in places like Africa is going to come from renewables, but it's probably going to either remain low-energy or ramp up emissions. There's also questions whether the least-developed countries can handle a grid based primarily on wind and solar, which is something even the richest countries don't know how to do.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
The country’s flood insurance program is sinking. Rescuing it won’t be easy.quote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're right that clean energy growth in places like Africa is going to come from renewables, but it's probably going to either remain low-energy or ramp up emissions. There's also questions whether the least-developed countries can handle a grid based primarily on wind and solar, which is something even the richest countries don't know how to do. Tolerance for 99.99% reliability makes it a lot easier to integrate a high renewables grid with limited use of current storage technologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.06dbbfe2a37b Fuuuuuuuck
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're right that clean energy growth in places like Africa is going to come from renewables, but it's probably going to either remain low-energy or ramp up emissions. There's also questions whether the least-developed countries can handle a grid based primarily on wind and solar, which is something even the richest countries don't know how to do. I was interested to learn that a lot of the countries which are 85%+ renewable are in Africa, obviously because they don't generate much power in the first place, but also because they use a lot of hydro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
post this in the trump admin thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I was interested to learn that a lot of the countries which are 85%+ renewable are in Africa, obviously because they don't generate much power in the first place, but also because they use a lot of hydro. Hydro owns, too bad it's been built in most of the places that are convenient for it.  (also it dicks with ecosystems but whatever, that's why we invented the Salmon Cannon)Sri Lanka generates some preposterous proportion of its electricity through hydro, which makes sense for a mega-rainy country with a huge height gradient. Relative droughts suck though, especially since the main supplemental (coal) plant is held together with gum, paper clips, and a genuinely impressive amount of ingenuity on the part of the engineers. The Chinese assessment of the coal plant is hilarious. "We extend the highest possible commendations to our Sri Lankan associates because we are genuinely unsure how it is still functioning at its current output level, also oh god we need to finish the planned capacity expansion yesterday Jesus H Mao" Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Hydro owns, too bad it's been built in most of the places that are convenient for it. That coal plant is less than ten years old, though? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Rime posted:That coal plant is less than ten years old, though? I might have slightly misremembered, it might have been about them overclocking it rather than it being flimsy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
What I enjoyed was the article got me to look up Kivalina, Alaska and I found the main road through town is named Bering Street. Hah! Although before long it'll be under water 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Then you can work on expanding the Bering Strait
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:In lighter news, I found this thread's theme song: Nah that's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUSoR4EdyIo ======= This thread is really great at repeating itself, but I think that a lot of people are talking past each other. For example, three different people might make three different posts along these lines: Person 1: Climate change is a really big problem, and since 90 companies produce 2/3 of emissions, any solution must involve taking on big business. Person 2: Hey, I'm looking to install solar panels on my roof and reduce my personal carbon footprint. Are there any resources on that? Person 3: A more efficient type of solar cell just came out. Also another study on the thawing permafrost. Person 1 then yells at Person 2 for being naive, and maybe yells at Person 3 for the same thing or thinks the permafrost study is backing up their point. Person 2 then yells at Person 1 for being a denialist by virtue of being so hopeless they're trying to stop action from taking place. A bunch of shitposts will also be scattered about, because of course, but the point is that all 3 posts are separate ideas not commenting on each other and each line of thought is worth exploring simultaneously. Pretty much everyone agrees climate change is a big problem that no single solution will get even close at. Everyone agrees the effects already locked in are really bad, though the exact language they'll use varies wildly. Most people will agree we need immediate action now, but also small actions are insufficient. Just imagine everyone tacks on "and yes, I realize this doesn't solve climate change completely" to their posts. Or, when relevant, "and yes, I realize this thing I'm proposing won't be easy." The idea behind the thread, though was 1) Get people to find and build community action against climate change. These, by necessity, must be small steps. Any big organization or action starts off small. 2) Share news about climate change and related politics, as well as informative articles 3) Help people convince idiots they know that climate change is real 4) Talk about how to go from small actions to big changes Small steps don't preclude the kind of systemic changes we need to combat and prepare for climate change; in fact, they are necessary. I really like the arctic sea ice forums because its pretty much all informative posts, genuine questions, and actual discussion. The implicit message underlying the entire forum is "the world's sea ice is hosed, its all gonna melt and gently caress things up," but no one actually says it, because everyone knows it. Instead, they focus on discussing and visualizing data, sharing information, and learning from each other. In the consequences section, they're not talking about global civilization collapse or shitposting; obviously climate change is going to drastically alter people's lives for the worst and kill a lot of people. Instead, they might have a thread talking about concrete and specific ways to help education the public, and when they make a point, they tend to back it up with evidence or an article. I think there's something to be said for emulating that kind of posting culture specifically in some parts of debate and discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:That's nice, what's your strategy for getting the public on board? A huge percentage of the population is already on board with nuclear power. In the past two decades, nuclear power favorability has bounced between 44% and 62%. The Fukushima disaster actually did very little to budge public opinion, which Gallup speculates is more influenced by gasoline prices than anything. So, if we see another spike in oil prices, public favorability might spike right back up, no convincing needed. This base of support is despite decades of misinformation on nuclear power and its dangers and no significant effort by anyone in the US to really push for nuclear power. Since low wages, unemployment, and education are still big topics, I think the best way to argue for it is this: 1) Republicans and conservatives are already in overwhelming favor of nuclear power (between 53% and 72%). Arguing for good, American, well paying skilled jobs and all the money such large projects would bring is sure to keep their support. 2) By necessity, this projects are going to involve educating and training skilled labor to operate and build the plants. Grants and scholarships helping more people get college or trade school education would make Democrats and liberals happy, as well increasing wages and decreasing unemployment. 3) While many liberal and left leaning people oppose nuclear power, educating people on its benefits can be effective. I've successfully convinced a good chunk of socialists I know by showing them deaths per energy capita statistics, discussing benefits. Since it aligns with combating climate change (and can align with empowering workers), it already has ideological components that left leaning people agree with. Essentially, it creates good, local jobs, it requires funding education, and it combats climate change. It's also not anything that requires any major or systematic changes, and the rate at which we could drop emissions would be incredible if nuclear power was scaled up and distributed in the US and worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I think the title fucks up discussion. "What is to be done," is evocative of hopelessness because it's too late for preventative action,* and the process's unpredictability means that present mitigation and adaptation efforts cannot be measured with relation to outcomes. "Climate Change: The Greatest Show On Earth," would be much more upbeat. Climate Change is the most massive dynamic any of us will ever see. It's interesting! * Feasibly, anyways. Theoretical radical action could do a lot and be fun to discuss. Nuking deserts or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Here's a short article on one of the problems switching to renewables for baseline power, namely the need to upgrade infrastructure to transmit power between regions to compensate for intermittent generation: Hi, what you're assuming is that nuclear is somehow cheaper or faster to churn out quickly than renewables, and that just isn't true anymore. Even concidering the grid challenges, renewables have reached the point that they are superior to nuclear in price, speed of deployment, and carbon saving potential. The grid issues are not something that "needs to be figured out", as that has been largely done already, it just needs to be implemented, which includes costs. These issues are generally managed relatively quickly, and the costs of grid expansion are cheaper than building new fossil fuel sources. There's a small article about the situation in the US here: http://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741 another article about future scenarios comparing nuclear vs renewables in europe here: http://wua-wien.at/images/stories/publikationen/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-power.pdf I was generally on board with the lets build nuclear as fast as we can idea, until a few years ago it became obvious that nuclear is way too slow and expensive ,concidering the fast pace that renewables are being deployed and decreasing in costs. Building nuclear today instead of renewables makes no sense any more. e: I have to note that I am absolutely for keeping exiting nuclear plants in business as long as we can, the grid issues are very real and need time, and even in a best-case scenario 100% renewables isn't feasibly in the short to middle-term. Building new nuclear just isn't feasible anymore. Son of Rodney fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
The Guardian posted:All hell breaks loose as the tundra thaws https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/20/hell-breaks-loose-tundra-thaws-weatherwatch?CMP=fb_gu Reassuring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:Hi, what you're assuming is that nuclear is somehow cheaper or faster to churn out quickly than renewables, and that just isn't true anymore. Even concidering the grid challenges, renewables have reached the point that they are superior to nuclear in price, speed of deployment, and carbon saving potential. The grid issues are not something that "needs to be figured out", as that has been largely done already, it just needs to be implemented, which includes costs. These issues are generally managed relatively quickly, and the costs of grid expansion are cheaper than building new fossil fuel sources. those links are totally unconvincing. if anything the first ones graphs screamingly argue in favor of nuclear. it even has the quote "Nuclear’s problems are largely self-inflicted." which means they can be largely un-inflicted if we so chose. the second one doesn't even try to address grid changes for renewable intermittent. I really hate this argument because its a perfect example of people dividing into idiotic camps of x-vs-y when the answer is YES ALL OF THE ABOVE ASAP. we need coal plants being replaced by nuclear plants *WHILE* natgas-cc plants are being replaced by wind & solar WHILE the electric grid is being built out heavily WHILE demand-management tech is rolled out WHILE vehicles transition to electric power WHILE people move to cities/raze the burbs, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Yeah I think nuclear's biggest benefit is that its stable. You could probably do away with nuclear if our storage capability was better (which is dependent on new battery technologies) so that we'd have enough stored power to deal with dips in the output of renewables. (calm weather, night time, etc) But for now I think nuclear + renewables is the fastest way to go without asking people to change their lifestyle. Not that people don't need to change their lifestyle but obviously things become a much harder sell if you tell people they'll just have to deal with outtages and all that. So for now nuclear has to be part of the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
I don't care how expensive nuclear power is or that it doesn't turn a profit. That's why the government exists. It has to be part of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
The government is why it is so expensive right now. Ever hear of regulatory ratcheting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:I don't care how expensive nuclear power is or that it doesn't turn a profit. That's why the government exists. It has to be part of the conversation. Nuclear doesn't "have to be part of the conversation" anymore than wave power does. The history of nuclear power shows that it is a poor use of resources with a high risk of ruining the plant before you get the value out of it you need. If new designs can change that, super, but as it stands the current designs are too likely to risk you building a plant you can't run for the lifespan you design it to have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
I thought the exercise was how to decarbonize the grid like now with allowance for an actually productive government hellbent on saving the species from the ravages of climate change. So I'm taking a pretty socialist perspective on the problem. In that case it's... regulated internally and who gives a poo poo, and the "value" is that we keep the lights on and society functioning. Frankly in reality it strikes me that we're either hosed by your concerns about nuclear power "market" issues, or by the task of overhauling the entire electrical grid. Out of curiosity is there an existing model for how industrial usage of say, a normal size electric arc furnace functions on a more distributed grid / with only renewables powering it? Sounds like a question for Three Phase or the industrial electricity thread I wonder if that still exists. Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:I thought the exercise was how to decarbonize the grid like now with allowance for an actually productive government hellbent on saving the species from the ravages of climate change. So I'm taking a pretty socialist perspective on the problem. In that case it's... regulated internally and who gives a poo poo, and the "value" is that we keep the lights on and society functioning. Frankly in reality it strikes me that we're either hosed by your concerns about nuclear power "market" issues, or by the task of overhauling the entire electrical grid. I'm saying it doesn't matter if the plan is built by capitalist or socialists, a plant that is a massive resource sink while risking being worthless due to construction or maintenance error is too big a risk. The same amount of effort, be it paid in dollars or ordered by a central committee, would be better utilized on building renewables, storage, demand side management, or grid improvements rather than on current nuclear designs. There are a bunch of grid models that can model a high renewable grid with complex demand requirements, ReEDS is one http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I would concede the point because I don't have any data at hand to back up my contention, but I'd like to see the comparison. I'm also curious about the drivers of the abstract "cost" again given that the big beef of regulatory ratcheting seems to be a large concern. Probably more appropriate for the energy generation thread, again. Something has gotta give, and rapidly, because from the climate perspective our carbon budget is almost up and needs to be prioritized for things that aren't easily produced via carbon neutral methods. Via some quick googling it's uh... scary how three mile island hosed up the industry in the USA. Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
A mix of wind and solar have not been used to supply to independently supply a major electricity grid anywhere. Some clever things can be done if you happen to have big rear end dams available. We shouldn't expect wind and solar to be able to displace on demand generation. Its not a proven technology in this regard, yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I think the title fucks up discussion. "What is to be done," is evocative of hopelessness because it's too late for preventative action,* and the process's unpredictability means that present mitigation and adaptation efforts cannot be measured with relation to outcomes. I think you've hit both a problem and its solution on the head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think you've hit both a problem and its solution on the head. I've suspected this for a while. A name change couldn't hurt at least
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
The title is a hamfisted reference to Lenin's What Is To Be Done? The implication being the only real way to stop climate change is through some form of revolution. However, the book also outlined the steps that needed to happen before that happened (e.g. a new political party that specifically spread relevant ideas), so also implying that the thread needed to discuss specific actions that will move enough people towards the bigger actions that need to happen. The Greatest Show on Earth is coincidentally the title of a book by Richard "Dick Dorkins" Dawkins briefly discussing various lines of evidence for evolution. I don't really think the thread title is what's causing the hopelessness in the thread, but I don't really care if its changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Not optimistic enough. Let's go with Climate Change: In an infinite universe, it's possible
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Climate Change: We're hosed, so get through the five stages already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Rime posted:Climate Change: We're hosed, so get through the five stages already. Yup
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
I was having dinner with some relatively smart friends the other night, and they were worse than the poster that shows up every two pages in this thread with like "well we don't use bottled water" level inanity. I need a youtube link I can send them thats like, well under 15 minutes, and goes through the important parts fast: - review of the scope of the problem (tons burnt -> ppm -> degrees risen) - review of the REAL meaningful consequences (not bullshit about beachouses in florida but stuff like salting the indus river delta and driving 10x the syrian refugee situation north) - review of the goals (IPCC targets, carbon budgets, timelines) - review of the REAL changes that would take to hit those goals (superebola, ww3, UN 2-child policy, etc) I dug back a few pages but everything I can find, even stuff I really liked, its 45+ minutes of some academic with bad audio and a dry slidedeck more or less smugly preaching to the choir. I like them, but I feel like they will not work at all as a "here watch this".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Climate Change: How to Make Friends and Influence Others Climate Change: Age of Extinction Climate Change: The Desolation of Smog Climate Change: The Species Who Played With Fire
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I was having dinner with some relatively smart friends the other night, and they were worse than the poster that shows up every two pages in this thread with like "well we don't use bottled water" level inanity. part of the problem with climate change is this is pretty much impossible 15 minutes... good luck
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
the anti-nuclear hysteria post three mile and chernobyl reminds me of the tragedy of darth climateus the wise. In trying to find a way to save the world by stopping the potentially regionally destructive nuclear energy, we switched to coal and instead destroyed the whole world. ironic how we could save Pennsylvania, but could not save the whole world
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Nuclear meltdowns are good for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Nuclear meltdowns are good for the environment. Yeah, it's hilarious how that's actually very true. The areas around Chernobyl have seen a huge boom in wildlife simply because the radiation has kept humans away from the area. Residual radiation is significantly less harmful to large animals like wolves and elk than people are, which is pretty sad but I guess isn't really that surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
how about Climate Change: This thread isn't in E/N so stop whining
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
hah I hope I find the secret to mortality so I could live to 2235 where humanity finally recovers from climate change and starts making movies and poo poo; and i can watch the movie based on the groups of refugees that settled in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and became the most prosperous and resilient humans due to optimal geography, access to water, minor infrastructure, and most importantly closed off from the chaos of the rest of the world. It would have all sorts of metaphors and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
The thing about wind, hydro and solar is that its output depends on a predictable climate..... Well, have you heard of this little thing I like to call climate change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:28
|
|