|
StabbinHobo posted:flywheels are just dipshit "i read a blog" internet nonsense. there was only one company that even tried, they got enough blogspam PR that people have heard of it, but they failed. the end. Flywheels are used as a high-load instantaneous UPS (675 kW for 15 seconds), among other uses: http://www.activepower.com/en-US/5059/flywheel-technology
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Pretty sure there's ~200 old Skoda 14tr Troleybuses that run in this country that use flywheels to store some power for when their contactors derail or power goes out. So yeah flywheels are a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
double nine posted:here's a hopeful lecture. This is the type of presentation of completely wrong information that I think is so insidious in climate discussions. He conflates the 97% number with unscientific scare mongering about natural disasters that is completely at odds with the IPCC. He misstates the science, then says scientists "agree" on the stuff he has just made up, because it suits his argument. Saying "extreme weather gets worse wherever you are" is contrary to the IPCC. "Droughts and crop failure is currently happening as a result of climate change" is again unsupported by the IPCC. Citing storms and then saying "no question" that these storms were made worse. The IPCC does not agree. He cites a correct WHO number of air pollutant deaths, but then scaremongers by saying it's from "factories, tailpipes, etc.", which is of course false (and also nonsensical). Most of it is from people that are extremely poor and burning wood (and similar fuels) in their homes, because they lack any access to electricity. I think the model of policy outcomes he has made is very effective in how interactive it is, and it truly gets to the politics of the matter....BUT he has juiced the baseball significantly with a 3C climate sensitivity. And if I am reading that correctly, he has used a value for the TCR of 3C? Logging into his simulator, he has atmospheric CO2 at 880ppm in 2100, and a temperature increase at 2100 of 4.2C. That is.....very alarmist, and very detached from reality. The IPCC's estimate of TCR is 1-2.5C, so he is almost double the midpoint. Consequently, the sea level rise is then equally juiced, and his scaremongering about flooding is of course dumb as a result. A charitable viewing of his presentation is that he just doesn't know much about the science, a less charitable view is that he knows, but is distorting it to prey on people's ignorance. It's unfortunate, because I think the software is very cool from a geopolitical standpoint!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think LCOE really does a good job comparing sources of energy because different sources aren't fungible. Wind and solar don't do the same thing as a coal or gas plant, and neither do the same thing as nuclear. In addition to storage you're going to have to factor in the cost—and emissions—of gas peakers operated to make up for intermittency . They're not shown on that graph but they're one of the most expensive sources of electricity. The other problem with LCOE is it doesn't take into account geography and transportation costs. Transportation costs increase for gas and coal the further you go from a source or the coast but on the other hand you can place a gas or coal plant almost anywhere to produce power where you need it. And with regards to solar, and to a lesser extent window, there are lots of places where your LCOE for Solar would skyrocket if you were trying to power anywhere with a significant amount of cloud cover, snow, and rain through the year.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
"Trust me, I know more about the climate science than this guy who presented at COP 15, he's completely wrong about the science, and no I don't need to actually cite anything, I said the magic letters 'IPCC' what more do I need as proof?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
call to action posted:it's weird how, even though it hasn't happened yet, there is actually a plausible possibility of one of guy mcpherson's predictions coming true (blue/blue-ish ocean in the arctic, or at least free of multiyear ice) If by plausible possibility you mean a massive meteor strike that sends the Earth careening into the sun, then yes it is plausible. This Guy McPherson is the flat-earther type who says no life will exist by 2026... Trabisnikof posted:"Trust me, I know more about the climate science than this guy who presented at COP 15, he's completely wrong about the science, and no I don't need to actually cite anything, I said the magic letters 'IPCC' what more do I need as proof?" Well he is wrong, and I emailed him, so we'll see if he responds! And everything I've posted I've cited previously and can be googled easily. Feel free to read the IPCC SREX yourself, the first few pages are the summary. Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:20 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I'll engage even with Arkane and did in the old thread, too. I think that is a very interesting callback considering the state of the world in May, 2018 versus May, 2012. Who do you think is winning that argument right now? Given the efficiency advances and extreme price decreases in solar and batteries, given the exponential growth in electric vehicles, given the fact that the majority of new power generation coming online in the world is renewable, given the rate of decarbonization in the economy...that doesn't give you pause about the trajectory of advancement versus ominous predictions about the far flung future? Do you think the AVERAGE person born in the year 2018 will purchase as their first car one powered by gas? Assuming owning cars is still something the average person does. Do you think that this same person, when they purchase their first home, will be reliant upon energy generated mostly by fossil fuels? And yet, when you look at the alarmist predictions about temperature, the most dire are dependent upon a status quo economy wherein a person born in the year 2080 is driving around a gas-powered car and burning carbon for electricity. That strikes me as a dumb and funny joke. How does it strike you? I read a great non-fiction book recently called Devil in the White City, and I recall a reference to the horse manure crisis, where a newspaper declared "in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure." That to me is a fitting analogy for predictions of (something like) 1000ppm CO2 levels in 2100.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Do you think the AVERAGE person born in the year 2018 will purchase as their first car one powered by gas? Assuming owning cars is still something the average person does. Do you think that this same person, when they purchase their first home, will be reliant upon energy generated mostly by fossil fuels? *looks at the favela outside* Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Do you think the AVERAGE person born in the year 2018 will purchase as their first car one powered by gas? Assuming owning cars is still something the average person does. Do you think that this same person, when they purchase their first home, will be reliant upon energy generated mostly by fossil fuels? if there are twice as many people born in 2018 buying cars in 2038 or whatever than there are now, it won't matter because buying and driving an EV isn't some sort of emissions free activity the planet cannot afford to have 6 billion drivers and that appears to be the development path that the larger nationstates have chosen to support, probably so that they can sell more cars overseas there's like what, 1.5 billion cars right now? I mean, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita if you want a good thought experiment. What happens if China approaches 950 cars/1000 people like the US does? That's over a billion more cars just in one country 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
self unaware posted:if there are twice as many people born in 2018 buying cars in 2038 or whatever than there are now, it won't matter because buying and driving an EV isn't some sort of emissions free activity For the future of emissions growth, there are two numbers to account for, the rate of GDP growth, and the amount of carbon emitted per $1 of GDP. If, under your scenario, twice as many people are buying cars and let's say half of them are electric, that means world GDP attributable to automobile sales has skyrocketed and carbon emitted per $1 of GDP attributable to automobile sales has plummeted. It may have increased in absolute terms, as you point out, since constructing the vehicle and driving the vehicle aren't 100% emissions free, but you've decreased the carbon intensity by a very large amount. This would be an extremely good thing. Using China in your example, the number of vehicles sold in China last year rose by mid-single digits. The number of electric vehicles sold in China last year rose by 53%. You're going to find similar-ish numbers across the world, which is world vehicle sales slowly rising but the specific segment of electric vehicle sales skyrocketing. Volkswagen recently placed a $50 billion order for batteries, and plans to ramp up to >3 million electric vehicles per year by 2025. We've reached a point in energy efficiency in many parts of the world where building a new solar plant makes more financial sense than building a new gas/coal plant (and I read somewhere recently that we're a couple years away from a new solar plant being cheaper to build/operate than closing an existing coal plant). As I said in the post, most of the new power generation last year was renewable...157 GW of new power plants last year were renewable, a net 73 GW of new power plants were fossil fuel. That number will likely soon reach negative numbers for net new fossil fuel power plants. So, much like energy production, when we get to the point where an electric vehicle is cheaper and better than an ICE vehicle, a point we are rapidly approaching, then um, why would anyone buy a new ICE vehicle?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:For the future of emissions growth, there are two numbers to account for, the rate of GDP growth, and the amount of carbon emitted per $1 of GDP. If, under your scenario, twice as many people are buying cars and let's say half of them are electric, that means world GDP attributable to automobile sales has skyrocketed and carbon emitted per $1 of GDP attributable to automobile sales has plummeted. It may have increased in absolute terms, as you point out, since constructing the vehicle and driving the vehicle aren't 100% emissions free, but you've decreased the carbon intensity by a very large amount. This would be an extremely good thing. Unfortunately the earth doesn't really care about how "carbon intensive" car production is, only how many emissions we put out total. The bottom line is that continued economic growth and development that follow the model global capitalism insists on is simple incompatible with a 2 degrees C future (or a 3 or 4 for that matter) i think in the case of EVs you're looking at something like a 50% reduction in total emissions over the car lifecycle, that's not enough if you want to export the idea of every person who lives outside a city center owning a vehicle (which is how American, Australian, Canadian, etc infrastructure all works) given that only like 1 in 7 people own a car at this point wordwide. that going to 2 or 3, even if they were all EVs, would be an ecological disaster quite simply there is no hope for the future until our economic systems appropriately price the externalities of our economic system. admittedly that would be one of the most disruptive changes possible to our system, but it's change or die at this point. we needed a carbon tax 50 years ago and we need it 5000x more now maybe you and Thug Lessons have faith in our current political and economic systems to see us through this mess without any sort of radical political changes, but i'd rather not roll the dice given the potential downside 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 22:17 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i think in the case of EVs you're looking at something like a 50% reduction in total emissions over the car lifecycle, that's not enough if you want to export the idea of every person who lives outside a city center owning a vehicle (which is how American, Australian, Canadian, etc infrastructure all works) given that only like 1 in 7 people own a car at this point wordwide. that going to 2 or 3, even if they were all EVs, would be an ecological disaster You base these assumptions on 2018's energy mix, but the energy mix as electric cars become more widespread will change dramatically. Just as a small for instance, I just bought a solar system on my house, and I have a Tesla reservation. I bought the solar not because I am obsessed with being green, but because it made financial sense. My electric car would use net zero emissions. How commonplace will solar on a home and an electric car be in the future? I mean, I don't even give a poo poo about my minuscule carbon footprint in the grand scheme of humanity, and yet I am "green" now. The world will become green not by force as you suggest it should, but by choice and some incentives. self unaware posted:Unfortunately the earth doesn't really care about how "carbon intensive" car production is, only how many emissions we put out total. The bottom line is that continued economic growth and development that follow the model global capitalism insists on is simple incompatible with a 2 degrees C future (or a 3 or 4 for that matter) The earth may not care about carbon intensity of the economy, but climate models will change dramatically depending on the number, which is where you are getting your projections. self unaware posted:The bottom line is that continued economic growth and development that follow the model global capitalism insists on is simple incompatible with a 2 degrees C future (or a 3 or 4 for that matter) I think one of the great ironies of the anti-capitalist stance is that free and free-ish markets are going to make the world a whole lot better, a whole lot quicker than the economic standstill and energy reorganization that you're likely to be a proponent of, and your lip service of caring about people dying would seem to stand in contradiction to your policy ideas. Far more humans die in extreme poverty than climate change can ever hope to kill off, and yet the expansion of markets and economic growth is quickly eliminating extreme poverty from the planet. The countries that rise out of poverty now will not have to use antiquated technology like coal and gas guzzling vehicles, but will have immediate access to 2018 technology of super advanced renewable energy, storage technology, and things like electric vehicles. The world is going to rapidly decarbonize its economic growth, massively grow its economy, become massively smarter and wealthier, and "wizardy" isn't going to be involved. And yes, carbon ppm will probably keep slowly rising by 3ish ppm per year in the near term, and the Earth will warm very slowly, and sea levels will rise very slowly, and everyone is going to be perfectly okay because it's incredibly slow moving, and when and if ill effects come, the ill effects will be able to be tackled by a world that is incredibly more advanced and richer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Jesus christ, Thug Lessons dragged this thread so far into climate denialism that loving Arkane came back.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Jesus christ, Thug Lessons dragged this thread so far into climate denialism that loving Arkane came back. Your posts in this thread seem to be nothing but a lot of repetitive, hackneyed soothsaying about the end of the planet that are completely disconnected from reality, including frequently waxing on about global dictatorships and the death of billions being the only realistic solution. The sad thing is that you've convinced yourself you know something about climate science. You don't. To seriously suggest killing people, which you did twice, is demented and dangerous. To label everyone who thinks the apocalypse might not be so close a "denialist" is stupidly disingenious. You have 5 pages of posts, and the only thing I found in a skim that even SCRAPES the surface of the science of climate change is completely wrong: quote:Lets not forget that the most recent IPCC report left out important feedback systems and ended up looking hilariously optimistic considering the data we've seen since. The exact opposite has occurred since AR5; we've reigned in and lowered the bounds for climate sensitivity (again), and the high-end climate model will likely drop CO2 emissions projections as well due to the global deployment of renewables obliterating the IEA's projections together with the decarbonization we've seen across the globe, including specifically China. A sampling of climate sensitivity studies since AR5, including "best guesses": ECS 2.0 - https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1836 ECS 2.0 - https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-119/esd-2017-119.pdf ECS 3.0 - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012693.pdf ECS 1.7 - https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 ECS 2.0 - https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156 ECS 2.8 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 ECS 2.0 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014000404 If you think the scientists that have begun work on AR6 are going to deliver predictions for your much-hyped apocalypse, you're going to be sadly let down.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Jesus christ, Thug Lessons dragged this thread so far into climate denialism that loving Arkane came back.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
this isn't even a climate thing, I've just never understood in life people like arkane and thug who somehow get so lost in the details, and so wrapped up in their identity of you're-wrong-because-i-know-more-than-you contrarianism that they wind up simultaneously knowing the *details* of something inside out while completely failing to draw the obvious conclusions that indicate even a *basic* level of understanding. you see it with people who memorize the poo poo out of the bible too. or anime, or whatever. like if only there were some way to redirect "memorize" brain power into "comprehend" brainpower.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
What they're doing is that they've decided on a position that's unpopular/not in the mainstream/hard to defend and then are using the full force of their "memorize" brainpower to fight an intellectual guerilla war against the obvious, mainstream position
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this isn't even a climate thing, I've just never understood in life people like arkane and thug who somehow get so lost in the details, and so wrapped up in their identity of you're-wrong-because-i-know-more-than-you contrarianism that they wind up simultaneously knowing the *details* of something inside out while completely failing to draw the obvious conclusions that indicate even a *basic* level of understanding. you see it with people who memorize the poo poo out of the bible too. or anime, or whatever. Turns out it's not hard to be a "contrarian" when a lot of the thread is an anti-science, anti-progress cesspit of despair. Why don't you elucidate the obvious conclusions you have drawn...what is your guess at the state of the planet in 2050 at the current trajectory? It's 2018 right now. If you were born in the year 1985, sea levels are about 3.5 inches higher, temperatures are about .6C warmer, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 66 parts per million. Meanwhile, global population has increased by 2.6 billion, GDP per capita has tripled, and the number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped from about 40% of the world to about 8% of the world. That is the previous 33 years, where are we headed in the next 33 years, Hobo? edit: I'll even go first! I think we'll be about .5C degrees warmer (relative to 2018), sea levels will have risen by about 4 inches, atmospheric CO2 will have risen by about 90 ppm. I think population will grow by about 1.5 billion, GDP per capita will have increased by 2.5 times, and the number of people living in extreme poverty will drop from about 8% to <1%. Oh and for fun, I also think that the population of Mars will be >5,000 people! What a time to be alive! Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Arkane posted:the number of people living in extreme poverty will drop from about 8% to <1%. Oh and for fun, I also think that the population of Mars will be >5,000 people! What a time to be alive! What a world, in which I can't even decide which of these is a dumber thing to say.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
It’s an unsettling mix of willfully blind optimism and condescension.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
I know climate change deniers IRL and they say climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to hurt American manufacturing and scientists promised global cooling in the 60s so you know whom to trust, also something about Jews somehow?, and it seems to me Thug Lessons is saying it's gonna be somewhat less bad than the thread median is making it out to be, which is not that hard considering some people in here are essentially saying the poles will be ice free all year and everyone dead by 2015.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
citation needed
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
I love that in this thread "climate change denial" means people that think the current scientific predictions are correct or close to correct and the self titled "climate change believers" are people that are talking about government coverups and looking at fringe scientists to vindicate their fan fiction. Like it's such an obvious cycle of a scientific report saying something like "sea level will rise between .2 and 2 meters" and that turning to exactly 2 meters in this thread then people rushing in to say it's 3 and then 4 meters, and then thug lessons saying "the report said it would be equal or less than 2" then people claiming he's the one that is anti-science.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
Dang, y’all are coming out of the woodwork today.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
I think there is really nobody ITT who doesn't think that moving to a carbon-neutral society as soon as possible is very important for our future. I mean, speak up if you disagree, but I'd be surprised if not.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
How are u posted:Dang, y’all are coming out of the woodwork today. Like, I don't know Arkane's larger history, but like clicking their history in this thread then clicking the history of the guy that is complaining Arkane is back it looks like Arkane posts totally mainstream science and the guy complaining about Arkane is talking about the need to genocide a chinese or indian city with an ion canon to stop climate change and a claim that in 70 years only new zealand will be habitable. Like maybe there has been some OTHER thread arkane is really really bad or something, I don't really know. But it seems hilariously obvious that at least recently he's been the reasonable one and the people complaining about him are some of the worst 'just ignore facts and post apocolypse fanfiction" posters. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I know climate change deniers IRL and they say climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to hurt American manufacturing and scientists promised global cooling in the 60s so you know whom to trust, also something about Jews somehow?, and it seems to me Thug Lessons is saying it's gonna be somewhat less bad than the thread median is making it out to be, which is not that hard considering some people in here are essentially saying the poles will be ice free all year and everyone dead by 2015. Nah, not really, you're one of the deniers too.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Oh and we get to relitigate Arkane now too! Yay!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What they're doing is that they've decided on a position that's unpopular/not in the mainstream/hard to defend and then are using the full force of their "memorize" brainpower to fight an intellectual guerilla war against the obvious, mainstream position Lol what, I'm all aboard the doom train (collapse is inevitable even without the direct effects of climate change at this point) but their position is the popular one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:it looks like Arkane posts totally mainstream science Arkane posted:I think one of the great ironies of the anti-capitalist stance is that free and free-ish markets are going to make the world a whole lot better, a whole lot quicker than the economic standstill and energy reorganization that you're likely to be a proponent of, and your lip service of caring about people dying would seem to stand in contradiction to your policy ideas. Far more humans die in extreme poverty than climate change can ever hope to kill off, and yet the expansion of markets and economic growth is quickly eliminating extreme poverty from the planet. The countries that rise out of poverty now will not have to use antiquated technology like coal and gas guzzling vehicles, but will have immediate access to 2018 technology of super advanced renewable energy, storage technology, and things like electric vehicles. The world is going to rapidly decarbonize its economic growth, massively grow its economy, become massively smarter and wealthier, and "wizardy" isn't going to be involved. Arkane posted:hat is the previous 33 years, where are we headed in the next 33 years i just want you to take a step back and appreciate that a man said Mars would have a human population of 5000 in 30 years and you defended him on the grounds he's citing mainstream science.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i just want you to take a step back and appreciate that a man said Mars would have a human population of 5000 in 30 years and you defended him on the grounds he's citing mainstream science. All that climate stuff seems like the absolute most mainstream science that exists. But I guess you got him, he's a climate change denier because... he's got a potentially over estimate of the 2050 population of mars. Thats how that works.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
How are u posted:Dang, y’all are coming out of the woodwork today. Well, as a long-time lurker in this thread, he isn't wrong. That's basically what happens in this thread. Sometimes interesting stuff gets posted, but most of the time both sides keep forgetting there is no cosmic constant called "My opinion is right and also transforms everyone disagreeing into evil Morloks"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:All that climate stuff seems like the absolute most mainstream science that exists. But I guess you got him, he's a climate change denier because... he's got a potentially over estimate of the 2050 population of mars. Thats how that works. i never called him a climate change denier (he is though) I'd say he's more of a technocapitalist utopian. The climate stuff is way less telling than quote:I think population will grow by about 1.5 billion, GDP per capita will have increased by 2.5 times, and the number of people living in extreme poverty will drop from about 8% to <1%. then again, that might just be the kinda thing a guy who flies around to every continent to pet a cat might latch on to as some sort of defensive mechanism to justify their actions just lol at having a 2005 reg date and questioning whether Arkane, the guy who links to Watts up with that, is a climate change denier 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 13:40 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
self unaware posted:then again, that might just be the kinda thing a guy who flies around to every continent to pet a cat might latch on to as some sort of defensive mechanism to justify their actions To be fair, if I had the money, I would totally do this too, so I have some sympathy. I wouldn't justify it, though. I'd just shrug and say something stupid like "I'm evil, deal with it"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I wouldn't justify it, though. I'd just shrug and say something stupid like "I'm evil, deal with it" well yes but you're capable of understanding why it's a bad thing. to most technofetishists we'll be taking subterranian vacuum tunnels to our mars launch ports in 30 years so who cares about ppm and we'll be... TWICE as rich. think of how easy our problems will be to solve then!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
The Washington state campaign for a new carbon tax started yesterday:K5news posted:Voter initiative launched to cut carbon emissions in Washington This is the carbon tax proposed by the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists had a nice commentary: UCSUSA posted:The Past, Present, and Future of Carbon Pricing in Washington State They're in the gathering signature stage to get on the state ballot in Nov. On the one hand it's nice to see carbon tax supporters unified in their support, unlike the previous ballot initiative in Washington state. On the downside the carbon fee is very low and they won't participate in the Ontario+Quebec+California cap and trade system. Additionally I understand the need for legislation to account for local needs, but in the interests of speed an ALEC-like approach to climate tax legislation might be more appropriate. Chadzok posted:There's a new(ish) system around using, basically, trains on hills/ramps which is essentially the same sort of thing and can be used pretty much anywhere and scaled indefinitely. The efficiency is pretty good too. I believe you're talking about Advanced Rail Energy Storage? I was impressed with the concept when they first received some publicity in 2016 (for example), but there hasn't been much info about how much their storage costs. Also more generally I don't see any form of mechanical storage being cheaper at scale than pumped storage (where it's available). I think this is just another fluffed-up startup until the costs become clearer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile... https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/994769185849753600
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
self unaware posted:
In April I flew to south korea and petted this cat:  Take that mother earth. This extremely slight increase in my carbon footprint of taking 1-2 trips a year will be the carbon that does us in because it was used for something fun and life definining instead of being used for something dour like running a clothes dryer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
How are u posted:Dang, y’all are coming out of the woodwork today. Yea, there's a lot of really dumb people here that don't have a single loving clue what they are talking about, so they scream and shout and pout like babies. Libluini posted:Well, as a long-time lurker in this thread, he isn't wrong. That's basically what happens in this thread. Sometimes interesting stuff gets posted, but most of the time both sides keep forgetting there is no cosmic constant called "My opinion is right and also transforms everyone disagreeing into evil Morloks" Yep, it's this unfortunately. self unaware posted:well yes but you're capable of understanding why it's a bad thing. to most technofetishists we'll be taking subterranian vacuum tunnels to our mars launch ports in 30 years so who cares about ppm  Owlofcreamcheese posted:In April I flew to south korea and petted this cat: ....You..... Monster!!!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, as a long-time lurker in this thread, he isn't wrong. That's basically what happens in this thread. Sometimes interesting stuff gets posted, but most of the time both sides keep forgetting there is no cosmic constant called "My opinion is right and also transforms everyone disagreeing into evil Morloks" Car Hater posted:Lol what, I'm all aboard the doom train (collapse is inevitable even without the direct effects of climate change at this point) but their position is the popular one. call to action posted:Nah, not really, you're one of the deniers too. Somewhat counterintuitively, it would probably be better for the climate, and thus for my future children, if you stopped posting about the climate. Maybe I'm wrong about this - feel free to convince me otherwise - but this is what it looks like right now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 14:23
|
|