|
Evil_Greven posted:https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/947475641624129536 But it's cold in the Northeast so the two cancel out 
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Cakebaker posted:I wont try to argue that you can put an equal sign between consumption and climate change but surely limiting unnecessary consumption could be one of the steps to help combat it. I think you could reduce emissions slightly by eliminating some consumption. But it's not going to solve the bulk of the problem. The sources of GHG emissions are overwhelmingly necessities: electricity, food, transportation. There is no moralistic solution here. People need these services. There are definitely better ways to deliver them but they simply cannot be eliminated and premising a reduction of emissions on doing so is equivalent to saying we won't reduce them. The bottom line is this: 75% of emissions come from outside Europe and America. The vast majority of future emissions come from developing countries, because developed countries are far better-equipped to reduce and have a much smaller population. Trade is not going to stop and growth is not going to stop, especially in the developing world. Nor should it. Poor countries need to become rich if we're going to have any hope of combating poverty, which at the moment is a far greater source of death and suffering than climate change. We're going to have to find a way to massively increase consumption while also reducing emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
australiar posted:we are drowning in our own greed, our gluttony, our perpetual directionless rage and jealousy and terror of everyone around us, of disease, of starvation, of death. that is the core of the climate crisis. we're greedy and terrified of death. we think we can build ourselves a perfect world where death doesn't exist, and in striving for that unattainable world we're happy to destroy the one that we were given, which is real, and home to billions of human beings, who will all die, and soon, in ways nobody could have foreseen None of this has anything to do with climate change. I mean, this is just standard reactionary ideology. The modern world is decadent and corrupt, got it. Climate change is a technical problem caused by the emission of greenhouse gases and the solution is to reduce those emissions, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Is India's pollution really that low compared to China? Emissions are rarely measured in that sense. The closest metric along the lines you're talking about is carbon intensity: CO2 per GDP. As you can see, it certainly doesn't support a consumption-based carbon moralism. France and the UK are below India and Brazil, despite consuming far more than either of those countries.  Commercial shipping: a small but significant source of emissions. The tiny country of South Korea emits about as much CO2 as all international shipping combined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Is India's pollution really that low compared to China? China's economy is significantly more developed than India's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:None of this has anything to do with climate change. I mean, this is just standard reactionary ideology. The modern world is decadent and corrupt, got it. Climate change is a technical problem caused by the emission of greenhouse gases and the solution is to reduce those emissions, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
australiar posted:fool he is right you know as long as it's nuclear/renewable powered, any form of human society from ecocommunes to dictatorship to slightly regulated (to make sure of the nuclear/renewable thing) liberal capitalism could be sustainable in terms of global warming
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Greed is good, the only way we will solve climate change is if the solution is aligned with human greed, pride, vanity and selfishness. If your hope for our survival is in the perfectibility of man we will all die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Greed is good, the only way we will solve climate change is if the solution is aligned with human greed, pride, vanity and selfishness. If your hope for our survival is in the perfectibility of man we will all die. I will live on in my posting. Thank you Library of Congress actually nevermind ima just czech out right now right after I write the LoC and ask that all my posts be deleted
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Greed is good, the only way we will solve climate change is if the solution is aligned with human greed, pride, vanity and selfishness. If your hope for our survival is in the perfectibility of man we will all die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Greed is good, the only way we will solve climate change is if the solution is aligned with human greed, pride, vanity and selfishness. If your hope for our survival is in the perfectibility of man we will all die. If you would have read any post in this thread, or the last thread, or the one before that, you'd know everyone here already realizes we're doomed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:he is right you know This would be a very good point if we had an economical way to rapidly shift power generation and transportation to non-emitting technologies, but we don't. The last few pages read like the thread disappearing up its own rear end again, because I don't think that it's really in dispute that we have everything we need to "solve" climate change right now. The problem is political and economic, just like it's always been. We aren't shifting to nuclear fast enough because nobody wants to pay for it. We aren't doing CCS (something which is literally baked into all feasible carbon budgets) at scale because there's no economic argument for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Well my New Year's resolution is to eat a lot less meat. Happy 2018
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Well my New Year's resolution is to eat a lot less meat. Happy 2018 Mine's to stop going to the doctor and hope I don't find out about an untreated medical condition for long enough that when it's discovered it's incurable and I can kill myself without guilt!  Nyah nyah my resolution has a chance of helping the planet more than yours
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
What the gently caress dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress dude Remember how someone earlier in the thread said if someone posted that global warming would exterminate all life on earth that someone else would be along to say it would cause the earth to physically explode?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Remember how someone earlier in the thread said if someone posted that global warming would exterminate all life on earth that someone else would be along to say it would cause the earth to physically explode? no but i'd like to subscribe to your newsletter
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
global warming will turn the earth into a magnificent shining sun
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
well do you know how suns are formed? my guess is as good as yours
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
in one hundred years we will all be dead. you, me, trump, we will all walk among the prophets. some will hold their hands, some will be under their feet. ten thousand years from now, who's to say the earth won't be a sun?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
australiar posted:well do you know how suns are formed? my guess is as good as yours if you haven't learned well read something, drat
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This would be a very good point if we had an economical way to rapidly shift power generation and transportation to non-emitting technologies, but we don't. The last few pages read like the thread disappearing up its own rear end again, because I don't think that it's really in dispute that we have everything we need to "solve" climate change right now. The problem is political and economic, just like it's always been. We aren't shifting to nuclear fast enough because nobody wants to pay for it. We aren't doing CCS (something which is literally baked into all feasible carbon budgets) at scale because there's no economic argument for it. We could have just put the public spending that was invested in renewables development into nuclear instead, and that would have been enough to build enough nuclear plants to transition most of our electricity to low-emission sources. This is indisputably true in Germany (which almost certainly would have actually saved money as well as carbon) and probably in the US too. Renewables were actually the first CCS: a non-economical technology that somehow became economical through massive, inefficient public investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
A technology becoming commercially viable through publicly funded development efforts? You mean like basically every technology ever developed?  But yeah I agree, the anti-nuclear lobby and activists screwed us all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
australiar posted:that is a great red text, is it true? I have a dour view of human nature, guilty as charged. There red text gets the specifics wrong but the sentiment right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:We could have just put the public spending that was invested in renewables development into nuclear instead, and that would have been enough to build enough nuclear plants to transition most of our electricity to low-emission sources. This is indisputably true in Germany (which almost certainly would have actually saved money as well as carbon) and probably in the US too. Renewables were actually the first CCS: a non-economical technology that somehow became economical through massive, inefficient public investment. Show your math that public spending on renewables would have been enough to replace fossil fuels in nuclear power plants instead. You have to assume nuclear gets a lot cheaper for that scenario to make any amount of sense. Look at the new nuclear construction in the US and compare it to the cost for renewables. Pick your metric, LCOE, EROI, gigawatts planned, or gigawat hours added to the grid, you have to wave a magic wand to make nuclear cheaper than renewables. Renewables are already economically viable without tax subsidies so your comparison to CCS is both inaccurate on a CO2eqv/KWh basis and a $/KWh basis. The comparison is not backed by data. By all means we should have built more nuclear instead of coal, but pretending that renewables are akin to CCS is both counterfactual and theoretically nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Show your math that public spending on renewables would have been enough to replace fossil fuels in nuclear power plants instead. Let's talk about Germany specifically, since they've essentially done what you want: eschewed nuclear in favor of renewables (resulting in increased carbon emissions). Germany has spent $800 billion on Energiewende, its renewables program. How many nuclear plants can you build for $800 billion? Let's assume a 500 MW nuclear reactor producing 5 TWh of power annually costs $1 billion. These are ludicrously favorable numbers that overestimate the actual cost. So you build 800 reactors which produce 5000 TWh of energy for $800 billion. This is more than Germany's total energy consumption, which stands at 3700 TWh as of 2013. In reality you could have ignored renewables, spent hundreds of billions of dollars less, (assuming nuclear power is far more expensive than it actually is), eliminated Germany's reliance on energy importation, and completely decarbonized the German power system. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Just so everyone remembers that, among all the solutions that will definitely be implemented with full international support any day now, the utmost important thing on our path to solving global warming and saving the world is making sure we (first worlders) maintain our hideously decadent standard of living. Anything less, what's even the point of surviving?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:Just so everyone remembers that, among all the solutions that will definitely be implemented with full international support any day now, the utmost important thing on our path to solving global warming and saving the world is making sure we (first worlders) maintain our hideously decadent standard of living. Anything less, what's even the point of surviving? This is reactionary horseshit. No, people in the first world are not too rich. The actual problem is that people in the developing world are too poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:17
|
|
|
death is coming soon friends, god willing
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is reactionary horseshit. No, people in the first world are not too rich. The actual problem is that people in the developing world are too poor. Of course, you're right, I see now. That's a relief, I'm going to go throw out my leftovers and drive over to the supermarket to pick up a bunch of nice big steaks for my family to celebrate our assured future that can definitely sustain all people at my level of lifestyle with no sacrifice. Edit: actually am going to do this, because gently caress it. TheBlackVegetable fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:if you haven't learned well
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
we must take a magical approach to climate change
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Let's talk about Germany specifically, since they've essentially done what you want: eschewed nuclear in favor of renewables (resulting in increased carbon emissions). Germany has spent $800 billion on Energiewende, its renewables program. How many nuclear plants can you build for $800 billion? Let's assume a 500 MW nuclear reactor producing 5 TWh of power annually costs $1 billion. These are ludicrously favorable numbers that overestimate the actual cost. So you build 800 reactors which produce 5000 TWh of energy for $800 billion. This is more than Germany's total energy consumption, which stands at 3700 TWh as of 2013. In reality you could have ignored renewables, spent hundreds of billions of dollars less, (assuming nuclear power is far more expensive than it actually is), eliminated Germany's reliance on energy importation, and completely decarbonized the German power system. See, I knew you wouldn't be able to reply honestly. I never said I wanted to eschew nuclear instead of renewables. You're also making either stupid or dishonest mistakes about the difference between operating and capital costs. Back in reality, we're looking at $12.5B construction costs on an AP1000 unit that would operate at a loss until a carbon tax is implemented. We need real climate policy and pretending that shifting public spending from renewables to nuclear was ever the solution is both pointless and nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
Actually scratch that, perhaps those numbers aren't favorable enough. Let's take the absolute worst-case scenario and assume that every nuclear plant will cost as much as Olkiluoto reactor 3, with its $8B price tag. Olkiluoto has a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW and is expected to produce 13 TWh of energy annually. That gives us 1300 TWh of energy for our $800B investment. This does not, unfortunately, completely eliminate Germany's carbon emissions. But it doe nearly-completely replace domestic power generation, leaving the remainder to be filled with hydroelectric. Instead about 20% of domestic power generation has been replaced with renewables, at an insane pricetag of ~$10M per megawatt, which when combined with a phase-out of nuclear has resulted in rising CO2 emissions. This is literally the worst case. There is no reason to assume that nuclear power must be this expensive. China's Hualong One reactors have an estimated cost of $2.5B per gigawatt, and there is no reason to believe this is anywhere close to the most efficient design. Western governments could have embarked on a crash-decarbonization program that eliminated power-generation emissions, but they chose not to because nuclear is icky. Instead they spent the money on developing new renewables technology that has not and likely never will deliver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See, I knew you wouldn't be able to reply honestly. I never said I wanted to eschew nuclear instead of renewables. I do not want to shift public spending from renewables to nuclear. This is a thought experiment. Had the renewables money been spent on nuclear we would have seen massive reductions in GHG emissions, because it was a proven technology instead of one that had to be developed. Now we have cheap renewables, and should keep building them. But eventually reality will have to assert itself and we will have to begin building nuclear reactors too, icky though they may be, because renewables alone simply cannot do the job. This is part of a larger point. We relied on technological innovation to give us renewables. This was a bad idea. We are now implicitly relying on negative emissions technologies to make up for our failure in that regard. This is also a bad idea. However the success in terms of renewables gives us some reason to be optimistic that the NETs will be able to deliver, and that technological innovation is a viable, if inefficient, strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
australiar posted:in one hundred years we will all be dead. you, me, trump, we will all walk among the prophets. some will hold their hands, some will be under their feet. ten thousand years from now, who's to say the earth won't be a sun? Please stop trying to get Lowtax in trouble with the government avshalom, and please get help for your mental issues 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
australiar posted:i have read many things but i choose not to learn how a sun is formed. it makes the universe more interesting, and it's not knowledge that i will ever need in my everyday battles between life and death that's a fair point
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:that's a fair point In a surprise twist, one year from now, an alien visitor will appear and ask him: Human, explain to us how you think a sun is formed. But be aware, that if you are wrong, we will deem you unworthy. You will be exterminated. He is doomed
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Libluini posted:In a surprise twist, one year from now, an alien visitor will appear and ask him: Human, explain to us how you think a sun is formed. But be aware, that if you are wrong, we will deem you unworthy. You will be exterminated. Whenever we are contacted by aliens they always choose the dumbest redneck trash and David Duchovny and some cows and dudes worried about their anuses We're not gonna make it are we
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:A technology becoming commercially viable through publicly funded development efforts? You mean like basically every technology ever developed? Please stop Southern California Edison from burying 3.6 million pounds of spent fuel rods in wet caskets 108 feet from high tide on our beach (after weaseling out of a court ruling they lost). All of this happening at a plant (SONGS) that was broken by 'tinkering.' It isn't the activists who stopped nuclear power in the USA, it's the industry itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 16:58
|
|
