|
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/sperm-counts-in-the-western-world-have-declined-nearly-60-percent-since-the-1970s if obesity destroys fertility then really more corn subsidies are the solution to global warming let them eat cake, really, please eat cake
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:So all it would take to solve this problem is like half the money in the entire world, a complete cessation of fossil fuel usage immediately, and a switch to renewable energy resources also effective immediately. That amount of spending would buy us getting to keep fossil fuels and not make things much worse. So instead we should stop using fossil fuels and then spend less money making things slightly better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
It's almost as if large-scale carbon capture has never really been an economically viable option and mitigation strategies that rely on it suddenly becoming cost effective are magical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Rime posted:Note that at this level of spending we could terraform Mars (long term) and establish permanent colonies on the Moon, Mars, Venus, and the Asteroid belt in about a decade, shifting around half a million people into space. Don't be a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Don't be a loving moron. Well we were busy talking about science fiction schemes which will never come to fruition, and will relegate the bulk of the human race to violent death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
I think a more effective way to spend 22 trillion dollars is to pay 3.5 billion people to have vasectomies
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think a more effective way to spend 22 trillion dollars is to pay 3.5 billion people to have vasectomies
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
e nvm
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
While carbon capture is absolutely a long shot, I'm still pretty pro a r&d effort towards theoretically seeing what works and seeing what can be scaled. At this point the .1% chance of a realistic scalable carbon capture solution in the next hundred years is still a lot higher odds than getting everyone to stop using oil and stop having kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
There is no comprehensible scenario in which CCS ramps to necessary scale at necessary cost before the world is largely weaned off oil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Just wait, someone will come up with a way to pull CO2 straight out of the atmosphere and turn it into oil - with the only downside being the creation of an equal amount of a long-lasting airborne nerve agent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Just wait, someone will come up with a way to pull CO2 straight out of the atmosphere and turn it into oil - with the only downside being the creation of an equal amount of a long-lasting airborne nerve agent. There are at least seven people in this thread that just ejaculated in their pants to that last part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
call to action posted:There is no comprehensible scenario in which CCS ramps to necessary scale at necessary cost before the world is largely weaned off oil. That might be true, but that's a difference between traditional CCS and direct atomospheric capture like this pilot plant. Direct atomospheric capture is how we go from a carbon zero economy to a carbon negative economy. We can do it with trees or algae or big machines and it doesn't have to be "cheap" in a capitalistic sense to be worthwhile in conjunction with a zero carbon economy. Even that doesn't solve all our problems but it really limits our further damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Quandary posted:While carbon capture is absolutely a long shot, I'm still pretty pro a r&d effort towards theoretically seeing what works and seeing what can be scaled. At this point the .1% chance of a realistic scalable carbon capture solution in the next hundred years is still a lot higher odds than getting everyone to stop using oil and stop having kids. I'm pretty skeptical even on the physics of it. We'll never be able to take CO2 and move the carbon back into high energy long chain molecules that can be stored at an energy cost that's cheaper than what we can get by burning those molecules again. It will always be more efficient just not to burn the carbon in the first place and use the energy we would for capture to replace the fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm pretty skeptical even on the physics of it. We'll never be able to take CO2 and move the carbon back into high energy long chain molecules that can be stored at an energy cost that's cheaper than what we can get by burning those molecules again. It will always be more efficient just not to burn the carbon in the first place and use the energy we would for capture to replace the fossil fuels. But we need negative emissions in the out years to begin to bring down the carbon curve slightly. The job won't be done once we decarbonify the economy. Likewise, you're assuming global equity in carbon cost of energy. There is a space for utility because some rich nations will transition towards zero carbon economies faster and it may be better for global carbon emissions for them to utilize their low carbon cost energy on thermodynamically inefficient ambient air capture if social and political restraints reduce the efficacy of spending those resources trying reduce the carbon emissions in other countries still using fossil fuels. Or all those times we talk now about California having "too much solar," utilizing that excess power for carbon capture will become good even at low efficiency as the WECC shifts towards zero carbon. It isn't a savior technology just another potential way to reduce the harms we cause. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Climate Change: The only renewable resource here is despair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
If we're talking about science fiction mega projects like CCS, what about the idea of a space based sunshade? Totally impossible, even when compared to CCS on a global scale? Wikipedia has one estimate at a paltry $20 B TheBlackVegetable fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
unlawfulsoup posted:Climate Change: The only renewable resource here is despair. We could definitely fuel the world on the despair of the underclass. Hell, we're basically there already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:If we're talking about science fiction mega projects like CCS, what about the idea of a space based sunshade? Totally impossible, even when compared to CCS on a global scale? We could even cut costs by selling ad space on it! Shade, brought to you by coca cola
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
That's what we need! Less insolation, less algal oxygen production in the oceans, less productive farmland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:That's what we need! Less insolation, less algal oxygen production in the oceans, less productive farmland. Would there not be a point where the trade-offs balance out? I expect the shade could be fine-tuned and adjustable. I mean, if you're going to lose that farmland and oxygen production anyway... Edit: What if all it was used for was to shade and re-freeze the arctic, and buy us a couple more decades of equilibrium in the weather so that civilization doesn't collapse due to food shortages, coastal flooding and mega-hurricanes while we work on decarbonization and CCS? TheBlackVegetable fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:That's what we need! Less insolation, less algal oxygen production in the oceans, less productive farmland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
So when we pull carbon from the atmosphere, what is it exactly? What does it's solid form look like? Can we use this to make a massive, massive statue of a guy with his shoulders shrugged in an 'oops' position as a warning to future generations about the dangers of fossil fuels?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
I'm partial to a large cube of graphite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:So when we pull carbon from the atmosphere, what is it exactly? What does it's solid form look like? Can we use this to make a massive, massive statue of a guy with his shoulders shrugged in an 'oops' position as a warning to future generations about the dangers of fossil fuels? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0KfxShPMc
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Turn it into a giant carbon nanotube shaft for a space elevator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
A nice animation but we wouldn't expect to do anything with co2 in gas phase at atmospheric pressure. Do they have one showing co2 at 3000psig?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:So when we pull carbon from the atmosphere, what is it exactly? What does it's solid form look like? Can we use this to make a massive, massive statue of a guy with his shoulders shrugged in an 'oops' position as a warning to future generations about the dangers of fossil fuels? Ideal pie in the sky situation would be to pull carbon from the atmosphere, turn it in to diamond, and use that to pave roads and make cinderblocks for houses, or powdered for sheet rock. All in a process powered by electricity generated from nuke or solar plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
CCS is like a balloon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Arctic Sea Ice forums are losing their poo poo right now, it's wierd to see the calm veneer crack over there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Just make them giant shades that absorb the parts of the light spectrum that are least useful for plants. Our atmosphere already does most of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Rime posted:Arctic Sea Ice forums are losing their poo poo right now, it's wierd to see the calm veneer crack over there. Which thread in particular are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Our atmosphere already does most of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
A pedantic point on saying something would "cost half the money in the world". Money doesn't actually accomplish anything on it's own. Money is a means of coordinating the effort and resources of humans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
- hi
|
Ocean Book posted:A pedantic point on saying something would "cost half the money in the world". Money doesn't actually accomplish anything on it's own. Money is a means of coordinating the effort and resources of humans. A counterpoint to your pedantic point, is that money isn't just a means, it's a measure of said effort and resources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Triple counterpoint, we are still hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Quadruple counterpoint: more money, more problems 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
what if the basic minimum income was defined in kwh :bongrip:
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I mean if you can abstract resources and labor into their representation via fiat currency it's a very brief and easy step to abstract energy into its repository in resources and labor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/USGS_Oklahoma/status/888138239109890049
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 03:26
|
|
