|
Thug Lessons posted:They're replacing coal plants, usually old, extremely dirty ones. On average natural gas has 50% lower emissions compared to coal, and these plants may be making even greater gains because the decommissioned plants tend to be high emitters. It's not a permanent solution but we need to start reducing emission now. Those new plants aren't going to go away in time. So while it's certainly good that coal plants are being replaced, the fact that we're simply replacing them with natural gas is actually not great. edit- Admitting that something is not great is not the same as demanding perfect solutions or saying that we should do nothing at all if the only option is an imperfect stopgap. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Aug 29, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
wrong thread
Raccooon fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
never be afraid of starting unnecessary drama in dnd we try to sound intelligent but actually we're just a circle of unemployed fat guys farting on each other and we need to be treated accordingly
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I am employed and have a 28" waist, thank you very much. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
and i am a methane elemental who's been sent from heaven to save you from yourselves
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Rime posted:I am employed and have a 28" waist Doesn't matter if you're 4' 9"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Replacing 4 coal plants with 4 gas plants provides the same carbon savings as replacing 2 coal plants with 1 nuclear plant and we're not building nuclear so it's still pretty good. Coal is in a class all its own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
I mean - even so, we have to leave it (fossil fuels) in the ground altogether, or invent magic technology somehow to pull it out of the air. Obviously the former isn't going to happen, but I still don't have to be pleased by somebody building more fossil fuel plants. Just because somebody isn't rolling coal while driving doesn't mean they're actually improving things. Small steps, etc... but the time has passed for that already. Enough pessimism, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I mean - even so, we have to leave it (fossil fuels) in the ground altogether, or invent magic technology somehow to pull it out of the air. Coal being replaced by natural gas is just such an illustrative case of why market based solutions are never getting us out of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I disagree. Immediate emissions reduction must take priority because the stakes are too high to demand perfect solutions. The fact that the stakes are too high is precisely why we must push for perfect solutions. Imperfect ones are not sufficient to get us out of this mess. MiddleOne posted:Coal being replaced by natural gas is just such an illustrative case of why market based solutions are never getting us out of this. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Replacing 4 coal plants with 4 gas plants provides the same carbon savings as replacing 2 coal plants with 1 nuclear plant and we're not building nuclear so it's still pretty good. Coal is in a class all its own. Which still leaves us with a bunch of natural gas plants emitting roughly half as much as carbon as the coal plants used to. And even worse, now instead of shutting down and replacing aging, uneconomical coal plants, we have to shut down and replace a bunch of fairly new natural gas plants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I disagree. Immediate emissions reduction must take priority because the stakes are too high to demand perfect solutions. Let's pretend for a moment that I'm some republican terrorist who would like to hit you with my car at 100 mph. Would you prefer that I compromise and hit you at at 50 mph, or would you prefer I not hit you at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Watch this fucko equivocate about perfect solutions. There really is no two ways about this. When fisheries research finds that only X tons of salmon can be fished next year or the species collapses, compromising with commercial fishers for 1.5X tons doesn't loving cut it. There is no point in supporting anything other than the global full-bore war on carbon to get is to neutrality in 2040-2050. I'll accept coal to natural gas replacements as tiny loving steps in the right direction, but I'm still going to brace myself for, ten years from now, having to tell the owners of these new plants that they're SOL and need to shut down while we go deeply into debt on massive carbon elimination energy projects. I would prefer that we not subsidize half measures right now. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
trees
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
its such an utterly hollow position to even try and claim the shift to natgas is any kind of victory. it wasn't done for carbon, it was done for price. and it comes at the cost of insane amounts of water table destruction along with plain old venting and flaring. if it was in any way shape or form part of some kind of plan to decarbonize, like as a strategy against the intermittancy of renewables or in conjunction with the amount of beccs it would take to offset then you could *try* to claim it as a comprimise on the path toward sucess. but its not. its basically just a coincidence and you're trying to treat that as progress. its the same kind of dumb data-point-myopia that leads to "where's your global warming now al gore" jokes when it snows. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
In sort of good news, Honolulu suspended its residential solar program since solar panels provide nearly a third of the power to the city during the day. This is good because all the of power generation on the island is from oil. Except 50MW which is from trash. They are currently upgrading infrastructure around the island so that they can eventually get people to sign onto time-of-day rates that will diminish the 6pm generator load spike.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SoonerTom/status/903089795345338376 God between Harvey and Irma's track I'm starting to realize I'm going to boil to death in my lifetime. I hope they measure how deep the water column was upwelled when it was hitting beaumont really soon. People should stop talking about climate change in terms of mass extinctions and should start talking about it in terms of a runaway greenhouse effect. Although to be fair, that is a kind of mass extinction. I bet the interim period in between where we get gigantic cyclones that stretch from equator to pole will be really fun too. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
i for one welcome our hypercane overlords
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
we are supposed to be a migratory species and the whole concept of cities is wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:we are supposed to be a migratory species and the whole concept of cities is wrong cities are great, cities are The Answer houston is not a city, its a giant mess of sprawl we need to pack everyone into ~10sq-mi hyper-upzoned megalopolises and declare everything outside city limits a preserve
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
If that hyper city includes fiber internet I'm down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:cities are great, cities are The Answer Counterpoint: most downtown areas are not affordable by regular middle class folks
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Counterpoint: most downtown areas are not affordable by regular middle class folks This is a political and planning problem, not something that's automatically inherent to high density living.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Counterpoint: most downtown areas are not affordable by regular middle class folks thats not a counterpoint its saying the sky is blue fun fact: in order to handle climate change... things will change! edit: also its very often bullshit, it just means that "regular middle class folks" would have to stop considering a third kid or a lawn or being miles away from brown people their god given right
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
The middle class are actually the only ones who can afford downtown living
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
It's cool when assholes that live in a city assume that the only reason you'd want to live outside of one is racism (especially when you consider the new trend of minorities only being able to afford suburban/exurban living due to gentrification of major urban cores)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's cool when assholes that live in a city assume that the only reason you'd want to live outside of one is racism (especially when you consider the new trend of minorities only being able to afford suburban/exurban living due to gentrification of major urban cores) Yep. All while living in their white ethnostates, like Wrigleyville.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:cities are great, cities are The Answer cities are great and sprawl and commuting 45min by car are wasteful and irresponsible and then there are the studies done on rats who, while being well fed if packed too tight get real rape murdery i know we aren't rats though that study is so old they probably all had lead poisoning anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
The rats didn't have internet porn
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
they get cancer too if you pump a liter of aspartame into them just don't do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
i wonder if we could get 10x more murdery and it would still net out less-murder when you factor in car "accidents" edit1: http://www.snopes.com/murder-rate-highest-in-47-years/ quote:According to the most recent FBI data available, an estimated 15,696 murders occurred in the United States in 2015, or 4.9 murders per 100,000 people. And while this was the highest murder rate in six years (compared to a range of 4.4 to 4.8 murders per 100,000 each year since 2009, when the figure was 5 per 100,000), it’s less than half the historical high of 10.2 in 1980. edit2: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html quote:In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States ok so clearly not 10x, but room to work with StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:they get cancer too if you pump a liter of aspartame into them look you get your graduate thesis the way you need to my favorite prof did hers removing the sex organs of montane voles she described it as challenging work as the ovaries and testes were unsurprisingly small called them her little babies or something just to make you cringe
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Maybe, just maybe, there's a fundamental contradiction between basing society around GDP-growth and trying to fight a crisis that is brought on by consumption. Nah it's mostly population. Even if we assumed switching the US to socialism tomorrow would reduce emissions by half (it wouldn't) we'd still be much better off just turning the population clock by 50-80 years with current per capita consumption levels. It's honestly quite strange how people ignore this and pretend that we live in some uniquely wasteful and ignorant time instead, when the reality is that for 99.99999999% of humanity there were 7 billion less people on the planet. And all we need to do is look at mid late 2000's venezuala or other similar examples and see that a non-market economy doesn't really lower consumption and emissions much at all, certainly not on the levels that people here are thinking. People like to buy poo poo; there is no way in hell you are going to stop the billions of people in india / china from trying to achieve a western level lifestyle. enraged_camel posted:Counterpoint: most downtown areas are not affordable by regular middle class folks Well that's just wrong, unless you are using some really weird definition of middle class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant to type median income, my phone autocorrected it to middle class, not sure how it happened
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:cities are great, cities are The Answer Counterpoint: Block War
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Counterpoint: Block War That's a perk, not a counterpoint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Once we can trick the human brain into believing it's watching 40 years of TV in a few minutes we can kill all the boomers because they'll be happy with that. Make it interactive and same thing for everyone over 20. People under 20 are so warped by smartphones that only a small fraction will breed. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Nuclear war is easier and a mite more certain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
In the end it all returns to Posadism
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:In sort of good news, Honolulu suspended its residential solar program since solar panels provide nearly a third of the power to the city during the day. This is good because all the of power generation on the island is from oil. Except 50MW which is from trash. Hawaii as a society is not in a position to seriously address climate change despite a high degree of awareness of environmental issues. As you mention virtually all electric power is derived from oil. The economy depends on high-carbon emission activities like people flying in for a holiday or jobs supporting the US military. Developments are car-centric with an impressive amount of sprawl for such tiny islands (at least on Oahu). The small geographic area means the intermittent nature of renewable energy is even more problematic, for example those solar panels won't be providing power at night. In theory the intermittent power issue could be completely addressed by adding wind farms and pumped storage, but this require a lot of infrastructure (like an inter-island power cable) that simply won't exist for the foreseeable future (despite the 2030 goal of 70% renewables). In the meantime they'll keep burning oil. Of course a single nuclear power plant in conjunction with solar could probably provide all of Honolulu's baseline and intermittent electric power needs. This is such a political non-starter that it doesn't even deserve serious discussion. edit: this came out a lot more negatively than I'd like. Hawaii is very nice and generally people actually care about environmental sustainability. There probably aren't many other states where the population would support something like the Hawaii clean energy initiative. Maybe it's still achievable but a lot of required infrastructure needs to get built very quickly. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 17:16
|
|
