|
self unaware posted:What do you mean by "without industrial civilization"? Are you giving up electricty? Also, we're already in a mass extinction so the ship has sailed on that one. Electricity, mechanical transit, fertilizer synthesis especially. I am preparing to do without these things, though I don't really expect it to make any difference overall since people have been blinkered into believing it's a matter of individual responsibility and not a non-viable system at fault. Thug Lessons posted:I doubt it. I'm with Peter Ward: This is functionally no different than my argument if we're going by # of humans that can be supported. Actually probably less humans, but we'll get to keep our sweet underground living and yeast-food growing technology?
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Car Hater posted:Electricity, mechanical transit, fertilizer synthesis especially. I am preparing to do without these things, though I don't really expect it to make any difference overall since people have been blinkered into believing it's a matter of individual responsibility and not a non-viable system at fault. Alright but that is a straight up death sentence for large swathes of the population, why can't we have telephones or refrigerators? Are we just going to eat the warming brought on by stopping aerosol production?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Alright but that is a straight up death sentence for large swathes of the population, why can't we have telephones or refrigerators? Are we just going to eat the warming brought on by stopping aerosol production? The death sentence is written already, yes we're going to eat the warming. The matter at hand is how much additional warming we are going to add before we stop pumping aerosols all over, which will happen one way or another. You cannot have telephones and refrigerators without extraction, refining, packaging and shipping, these things cannot be done without the use of fossil fuels, so no, you can't have them long-term on carbon worlds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The death sentence is written already, yes we're going to eat the warming. The matter at hand is how much additional warming we are going to add before we stop pumping aerosols all over, which will happen one way or another. You cannot have telephones and refrigerators without extraction, refining, packaging and shipping, these things cannot be done without the use of fossil fuels, so no, you can't have them long-term on carbon worlds. What's long term? Why can't we use any fossil fuels? Surely we can use some level "sustainably"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
how do I invest in stillsuit technology
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
self unaware posted:What's long term? Why can't we use any fossil fuels? Surely we can use some level "sustainably"? Given the evidence, about a century or two of use. We probably could use them sustainably if it was extremely limited and we didn't use them to grow our population, but when it comes down to it all life is is self-perpetuating systems that are incentivized into exploiting the maximum amount of energy available, so we WILL use them to grow if we can, locking ourselves into this very situation. As to why not, obviously because sudden sharp changes to the carbon cycle will undermine the stability of any organized civ. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The death sentence is written already, yes we're going to eat the warming. The matter at hand is how much additional warming we are going to add before we stop pumping aerosols all over, which will happen one way or another. You cannot have telephones and refrigerators without extraction, refining, packaging and shipping, these things cannot be done without the use of fossil fuels, so no, you can't have them long-term on carbon worlds. I see what you're trying to say but between the existence of nuclear and more recently very cheap renewable energy it's not obvious that a sustainable industrial society is necessarily impossible. It's totally fair to argue that the infrastructure of most developed economies and the current global economy is based around excessive fossil fuel usage, and we don't have enough time (or the political will) to transition to a carbon neutral global economy before causing catastrophic warming. It's somewhat tragic that the price of solar cratered as late as it did. And yes, I believe the main question of this thread and defining challenge of our generation is how do we go about limiting this future catastrophe and the associated death toll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Given the evidence, about a century or two of use. We probably could use them sustainably if it was extremely limited and we didn't use them to grow our population, but when it comes down to it all life is is self-perpetuating systems that are incentivized into exploiting the maximum amount of energy available, so we WILL use them to grow if we can, locking ourselves into this very situation. alright but if we're veering into magical "lets just voluntarily drawdown civilization" i dont really understand why getting rid of electricity is necessary. we're talking magical scenarios here
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The death sentence is written already, yes we're going to eat the warming. The matter at hand is how much additional warming we are going to add before we stop pumping aerosols all over, which will happen one way or another. You cannot have telephones and refrigerators without extraction, refining, packaging and shipping, these things cannot be done without the use of fossil fuels, so no, you can't have them long-term on carbon worlds. If you want a humanity that stops extracting, refining, packaging and shipping things, you're going to disappointed. If you go to your grave predicting those practices are going to end, you'll go to grave seeing your promises unfulfilled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Without chemical fertilizer the human race is toast. Like half the nitrogen atoms in the human population are from fertilizers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If you want a humanity that stops extracting, refining, packaging and shipping things, you're going to disappointed. If you go to your grave predicting those practices are going to end, you'll go to grave seeing your promises unfulfilled. Great thanks. Meanwhile the rest of us will keep trying to convince society to be better. We just need a few handsome scientists to start calming explaining that nuclear is ok.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Climate Change: We're missing the forests for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Inspired by the most recent ./ piece (and by a rather expensive battery breaking in our lab just now): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-08/cities-running-on-car-batteries-just-so-crazy-it-might-work I used to think electric cars were a bit of a red herring for clean energy, but then Musk did a few publicity stunts centered around batteries and now I'm a bit more interested. Presumably, in a few decades, there will be a lot of electric cars around, and that means a lot of batteries. Could that make renewables workable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
no, v2g is just nerds trying to invent an hypothetical optimizing trick self driving cars will decimate private vehicle ownership such that a car that's *not* out earning some money giving rides until its battery is dead will be a rare financial luxury I'm sure a handful of vendors will get to the point where your private car can help backup your garage battery in your private burb house in a pinch (outage), but the connectivity, protocols, standards, incentives, implementation and defenses of a utility overlay network that could coordinate storage and dispatch across enough vehicles/batteries to be both reliable and of meaningful impact is just... kinda ludicrous. And so so many of the steps inbetween solve most of the problem anyway. Like if you had high-resolution time of day billing with low-latency communication thereof appliances and commercial uses could load-shed, and real-financial-scale batteries could arbitrate their hearts out. Its just part of this american consumerist obsession with the car-penis having to get jammed into everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I used to think electric cars were a bit of a red herring for clean energy, but then Musk did a few publicity stunts centered around batteries and now I'm a bit more interested. IMO it's the opposite, renewables are required to make electric cars workable in the context of meeting emissions targets. Electricity generation requirements are going to go way up once electric cars + trucks become widely used. If that fleet is powered by new natural gas generation instead of renewables it destroys any hope of decarbonizing in the near future. edit: For reference: 
Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Apr 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:IMO it's the opposite, renewables are required] StabbinHobo posted:self driving cars will decimate private vehicle ownership such that a car that's *not* out earning some money giving rides until its battery is dead will be a rare financial luxury StabbinHobo posted:I'm sure a handful of vendors will get to the point where your private car can help backup your garage battery in your private burb house in a pinch (outage), but the connectivity, protocols, standards, incentives, implementation and defenses of a utility overlay network that could coordinate storage and dispatch across enough vehicles/batteries to be both reliable and of meaningful impact is just... kinda ludicrous. And so so many of the steps inbetween solve most of the problem anyway. Like if you had high-resolution time of day billing with low-latency communication thereof appliances and commercial uses could load-shed, and real-financial-scale batteries could arbitrate their hearts out. StabbinHobo posted:Its just part of this american consumerist obsession with the car-penis having to get jammed into everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Electric cars running off a fossil fuel grid is bad no doubt. We should have both electric cars and a renewable energy grid. That being said, the horsepower generated by power plants and then transferred to electric car batteries is way more efficient than having an internal combustion engine, so it's still a net improvement(less of a terrible thing?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
I thought millenials don't care about car ownership so the American Car Penis will just fall off with old age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Electric cars running off a fossil fuel grid is bad no doubt. We should have both electric cars and a renewable energy grid. If you're talking about natural gas electric plants, the overall effect of running EV's off of that is less CO2. How? 90%+ efficiencies on the EV, >50% on the power plant. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions  How many miles per gallon would a gas car have to achieve to produce global warming emissions equivalent to an EV? The answer depends on where you live. Numbers based on the EPA's eGRID 2015 database.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
davebo posted:I thought millenials don't care about car ownership so the American Car Penis will just fall off with old age. Millennials can't afford cars without going into massive amounts of debt, which is why the current car market is gonna go off a cliff soon. I know plenty of Millennials who have a huge boner for electric cars, both of out their supposed environmental benefits and because they (like most Americans) live in a place with piss poor public transit and therefore need a car to function independently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Regarding the climate change debate, this is a debate that can't be won since conservatives (or at least, the more educated and intelligent of them) know it's real and are merely pretending to believe that it isn't. American conservatives figured out that the climate change solutions which liberals were suggesting were utterly unacceptable to them, and so ended up using an old debate trick of simply refusing to accept the obvious proof that man made climate change is even a real thing. The average person is not going to actually learn enough about the science behind it to be able to judge for themselves, so all it took was a small number of conservative speakers and writers to question the validity of climate change, and the uneducated conservative masses decided the whole thing was some sort of liberal trick which they could safely ignore. So now anyone trying to pass any law or do anything to combat global warming in the U.S. faces an uphill battle since they have to try to convince so many people that there even is a problem in the first place. I'm going to say that the left has only itself to blame for this, as liberals attempted to use the very real problem of global warming to try to push every one of their pet issues which had nothing to do with it. The OP message from this thread, for example, suggests a socialist revolution as a reasonable solution. This thread, and every other I've seen everywhere on this, has people suggesting that we all need to abandon our cars and suburban living and move to large cities where we can take the bus, or that we must lower the human population to some small fraction of where it is today, or abandon most of our technology altogether. Extreme suggestions like this are why the U.S. is gridlocked on the subject of climate change and is doing nothing, while we wait to see if improvements in technology will allow us to invent our way out of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Inspired by the most recent ./ piece (and by a rather expensive battery breaking in our lab just now): I mean, they're talking about 1100 GW/h in global storage by 2027. That's not really that much. The US alone uses millions of GW/h in energy every year. It might be a nice boost, but I'm sort of skeptical about this proposed future where you're essentially renting your car battery out to Duke Energy. There are ways to store renewable energy, but not very much or for very long. There's batteries, but you'd need huge battery infrastructure to make up for intermittency. There's pumped-water storage, but that requires specific geology and can't be deployed in, say, Nevada. Solar thermal has molten salt storage, which can store energy more efficiently, but thermal isn't economical compared to PV, wind, or fossil sources. The bottom line is that right now and for the near future you are not going to be able to rely on storage to provide a significant portion of dispatchable power, with shortfalls handled mostly by natural gas peakers. Wind is a little different, you would probably want to concentrate on better transmission than charging batteries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I mean, they're talking about 1100 GW/h in global storage by 2027. That's not really that much. The US alone uses millions of GW/h in energy every year. I think you are letting your units get really screwy here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
I have no scientific credentials of any kind and am unable to dropkick this poo poo into the social media garbage receptacle where it presumably belongs, might someone be inclined to gimme a couple of succinct paragraphs that I could use to respond to this thingquote:Logic says that as the polar ice caps get smaller, that they will melt faster. If you have 6-feet of snow on the ground and the temp goes to 38 degrees it will take days if not a week to melt the snow. But if you have 6-inches on the ground and the temp is 38 degrees it will be gone that afternoon / or the next morning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think you are letting your units get really screwy here. Nah, these are EIA numbers. 3,762,462 GW/h annually. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
rivetz posted:I have no scientific credentials of any kind and am unable to dropkick this poo poo into the social media garbage receptacle where it presumably belongs, might someone be inclined to gimme a couple of succinct paragraphs that I could use to respond to this thing Thug Lessons posted:Nah, these are EIA numbers. 3,762,462 GW/h annually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
rivetz posted:I have no scientific credentials of any kind and am unable to dropkick this poo poo into the social media garbage receptacle where it presumably belongs, might someone be inclined to gimme a couple of succinct paragraphs that I could use to respond to this thing Why's there more water? It's a false dichotomy. And sea level rise is mainly from thermal expansion. Global Warming's warming oceans. It doesn't sound like that guy knows that. Also, I've never seen, "more ocean water, more water stuff happening," before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
rivetz posted:I have no scientific credentials of any kind and am unable to dropkick this poo poo into the social media garbage receptacle where it presumably belongs, might someone be inclined to gimme a couple of succinct paragraphs that I could use to respond to this thing *nooo* don't do this unfriend the person if you really must with a note of "clearly you're just an rear end in a top hat that would rather try and sound smart than lift a finger for your fellow man, i'm removing you from my life, goodbye"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:The OP message from this thread, for example, suggests a socialist revolution as a reasonable solution. It's an extremely reasonable solution in that it's the only surefire way to halt climate change. You said that conservatives find the solutions unacceptable and make no mention of why they're unacceptable to conservatives. They know just as well as socialists that solutions necessarily decrease profits (and the rate of profit growth) and distribute capital more equitably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:Regarding the climate change debate, this is a debate that can't be won since conservatives (or at least, the more educated and intelligent of them) know it's real and are merely pretending to believe that it isn't. Are they though? Are these "extreme suggestions" really the cause of this gridlock, and how are you evaluating this? A much simpler explanation is that Americans (especially conservatives) don't want to pay the significant cost of decarbonizing. This is understandable, as it will be very expensive. Blaming it on indelicate rhetoric from nebulous leftists isn't convincing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Are they though? Are these "extreme suggestions" really the cause of this gridlock, and how are you evaluating this? A much simpler explanation is that Americans (especially conservatives) don't want to pay the significant cost of decarbonizing. This is understandable, as it will be very expensive. Blaming it on indelicate rhetoric from nebulous leftists isn't convincing. And of course we shouldn't say wrong (or repugnant) things in the first place, on order of them being wrong (or repugnant).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Nah, these are EIA numbers. 3,762,462 GW/h annually. Comparing something per hour to something per year is gonna mismatch pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Comparing something per hour to something per year is gonna mismatch pretty bad. It's not per hour. It's 950 GWh of storage, (sorry, not 1100, I misread the graph), not 950 GWh that can be supplied every hour. Even if we look at daily energy consumption, that's about enough to power the US for two hours every day. And again, that's global capacity. Realistically you're looking at meeting a maximum 1-2% of global energy demand from this scheme, if everyone signs up and lets the power company empty their car battery whenever they feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Comparing something per hour to something per year is gonna mismatch pretty bad. *realistically, only a portion would obviously be available for this, based on the minimum available charge demanded by the owners of these vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not per hour. It's 950 GWh of storage, (sorry, not 1100, I misread the graph), not 950 GWh that can be supplied every hour. the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Are they though? Are these "extreme suggestions" really the cause of this gridlock, and how are you evaluating this? A much simpler explanation is that Americans (especially conservatives) don't want to pay the significant cost of decarbonizing. This is understandable, as it will be very expensive. Blaming it on indelicate rhetoric from nebulous leftists isn't convincing. There are many things we could do which would not be expensive at all, but which we are not doing because of the current political situation. For example, something like half of Americans are driving around in enormous trucks and SUVS which get half or less the gas mileage that a reasonable passenger car would get. It would actually save us a large amount of money if people were driving reasonable cars, both in gas and in the expense of the vehicles. A culture which was unified could make driving a fuel efficient car a patriotic thing to do, due to combating global warming and due to removing our dependency on foreign oil. Nuclear power is the simple replacement for coal plants, and could be produced reasonably cheaply if the whole process of building them were streamlined. In this case, it's primarily liberal environmentalists who oppose nuclear power, although everyone has the NIMBY attitude. Large tax breaks (larger than currently exist) for investing in wind and solar power would help as well. You want to start with the efficient reasonable actions, not with "AND NOW WE ALL ABANDON OUR CARS AND SIT IN THE DARK HOLDING CANDLES AWAITING OUR OWN EXTINCTION IN PENANCE FOR OUR SINS AGAINST NATURE".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher! GWh != GW/h
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher! The "you will always make a typo when correcting someone's spelling" effect strikes again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:the h in GWh is "per hour" of course the yearly one is much higher, it's like 8766 times higher! You're just confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:54
|
|