|
Conspiratiorist posted:Besides the potential problems of algae blooms, the problem with that is it does nothing to solve ocean acidification. Neither of these things is necessarily true. Though some are worried about it, it shouldn't cause algal blooms/deoxygenation because iron isn't anywhere close to the limiting factor that nitrogen and phosphorus are. And moreover it's one of the few geoengineering schemes that directly addresses ocean acidification, which is caused by conversion of dissolved CO2 into carbonic acid, by directly pulling carbon out of the ocean. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 14, 2018 |
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
i'm loath to engage you even if its a reasonable question... but I guess since you asked twice - I think the U.N. population estimate is reasonable at 9.7 but doesn't account for what will likely be some real problems (famines/wars/refugee type stuff) so we will probably come a couple hundred million short of that - peak (light-sweet-crude) oil will have become more obvious in retrospect as shale oil goes through one or two more of its whipsaws of bust & boom cycles causing generally higher energy prices. more importantly, highly volatile ones. total liquids production will climb but at slower and slower trailing-average rates leading to 2030 - 2050 looking very plateu-ish in the 110 ~/- 10mbpd range - coal will move mostly sideways. while china and developed nations more aggressively wind it down, india and everyone else will take up the slack, figure 8Gt/yr +/- 1 - gas will continue strong growth, probably about doubling, figure 6000 - 8000 Bcm/yr - wind will continue its rapid growth, but that will still only move it from 2% of the total supply to like 8 - similarly the price of solar will keep dropping and capacity will grow very fast, but that still only means its share will go from <1% to like, 4 - geothermal and hydro will continue to be physically limited to very small impact. wave power is dumb tech blog nonsense. all of which means carbon will continue its very rapid climb, blowing through any 2C let alone 1.5C budget. we'll basically be on an rcp6 to rcp8.5ish trajectory *minus* the negative emissions genie that in turn means the "tropic of chaos" will continue to suffer from weather extremes, crop failures, famines, state failures and refugee crises. central american refugees will increase greatly and head north into mexico and the US. north african and middle eastern refugees will continue to flood into southern and central europe. sahel areas like niger, chad, and mali will continue to collapse like sudan and ethiopia, driving more refugges into nigeria, ethiopia and kenya. myanmar and bangladesh will continue to collapse, especially as sea level rise combined with more erratic weather patterns drives flooding, crop failures and farmland destruction via saltwater intrusion. the philippines is pretty hosed. all told this means ~100 - 300M people will either be dying off or on the move. in the mean time, as the refugee crisis gets ~5x worse, so too will the reactionary fascist response. your trump/farange/orban/duerte types are but leading indicators. poo poo like what australia did with manus island. poo poo like what ICE is doing right now. expect a *lot* more of that. in the midst of all that, mostly happening "overseas" or "at the border" to us, extreme weather events will continue to just randomly knock out towns, cities, and regions for days or weeks at a time. the body counts will be low but the social displacement, emergency funds and insurance repercussions will greatly add to the economic drag. things like new orleans, california wildfires and puerto rico but like a dozen or two of them. meanwhile, electric car sales will continue to climb quickly. by 2050 in the US you could easily see them be the vast majority of new cars sold, and nearly half the US fleet, but still probably only a fifth of the global, which has grown greatly in total #. this will impact oil demand, but supply will already be constrained, and every gallon an american doesn't use to commute a guy in brazil will happily burn in his generator or a tajiki will do a few more truck routes. li-ion battery sales will continue to soar and overall smart and micro grid stuff will bloom, but absent some order-of-magnitude near miracle breakthrough storage still won't be a meaningful solution to intermittentcy, it will just help mitigate at the margins. rich people and larger buildings will buy them for backups and poor people will just get used to somewhat more frequent brown and short black outs. the overall carbon mix of the electric grid will be substantially better, but like, by a quarter or a third. it will still produce ludicrous amounts of carbon. nuclear will, god willing, show some major advancements in smaller safer more mass producible plant designs. but it will be tens of plants getting built in the 2020 - 2040 range and only just getting to the point where people make up their mind if they've proven themselves by 2040. so even if it goes great and kicks off a big mass rollout, still no meaningful impact on the overall numbers by 2050. in short: - first worlders and upper middle class types will be fine, unless they randomly live somewhere a storm destroys their house. overall though the economic drag of all the problems will feel not unlike the last few decades have, where everybody says the numbers are going up but it sure doesn't feel like it - people in the marginal states and climate regions are super hosed and it will be* a humanitarian crisis greater than we've ever seen before - increasingly harsh measures will be taken to insulate the former from the latter * already is edit: i focused this on climate stuff and didn't get into automation/inequality stuff medicine or vr stuff StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 13:19 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I guess I thought there might be some kind of giant sci-fi carbon scrubber machine that had been proposed? I guess not though. e: original numbers didn't make sense. spf3million fucked around with this message at 10:48 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
spf3million posted:These guys are doing basically exactly that. It makes way more sense from a process perspective to do capture at the source since the concentrations are so much higher. Meaning it is easier (less capital expense and lower ongoing energy requirement) to get a stream at 5% CO2 down to 200ppm than is it to take 400ppm ambient air down to 200ppm. The problem of carbon capture at emissions sources are threefold: 1. That only works as long as we keep emitting, we need negative emissions not just reduced emissions. 2. That rarely comes without large parasitic loads on your emission source, often a power plant. So we're talking about having to burn 3x as much coal to reduce the emissions 1/3, which is great if you're a coal mine but not so great for everyone else. 3. They're expensive systems that either mean we're locked into the emitting technology or we have to write off the investment we've made as soon as we tear down the plant in 10 years or less.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
Batteries are going to continue getting better. Li-ion I think will go the way of nicad and we'll be using safer electrolytes that allow manufacturers to go back to lithium metal batteries.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Batteries are going to continue getting better. Li-ion I think will go the way of nicad and we'll be using safer electrolytes that allow manufacturers to go back to lithium metal batteries.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:My problem is, it seems you're much more invested in convincing some observer that OOCC is a terrible person who should be shunned and despised, than convincing anyone, in particular OOCC, to do things better. There's actually an SA quote for exactly this occasion quote:A better analogy would be if someone walks into a championship tournament, says "GEE I THINK I MAY HAVE TRANSCENDED THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF YOU GRANDMASTERS HERE, WANT TO JOIN MY NEW SCHOOL OF CHESS STRATEGY?", then loses by scholar's mate twice in the first round.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
One of the problems I heard of with increasing electrical vehicles is that li-ion batteries are selected because the materials are so light, but the raw materials are pretty rare. Are there technological breakthroughs in the pipeline that would be able to replace rare earth materials like kobalt in the production of batteries with materials that are more abundant and equally or almost equally lightweight? (disclaimer: obviously replacing fossil fuel vehicles with electrical vehicles needs to be paired with a massive increase in renewables and nuclear) (also it'd be nice if the new materials weren't self-iginiting, which is a major risk if the power cells rupture in a car crash) double nine fucked around with this message at 08:57 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
double nine posted:One of the problems I heard of with increasing electrical vehicles is that li-ion batteries are selected because the materials are so light, but the raw materials are pretty rare. Are there technological breakthroughs in the pipeline that would be able to replace rare earth materials like kobalt in the production of batteries with materials that are more abundant and equally or almost equally lightweight? We've been waiting of actual new battery-tech for the better part of the last decade and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
so it'll arrive around the time as commercial fusion energy technology, ok.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:There's actually an SA quote for exactly this occasion He makes his deck into 2 piles, so 2 different cards can be the top card of his deck.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem of carbon capture at emissions sources are threefold: 2. The various CCS schemes being brought to "market" are certainly energy intensive but they are carbon negative. In a market based system their economic favorability will depend on their process efficiency (how little energy can they do it with) and the relative delta between the energy cost and the value placed on reduced CO2 emissions (cap and trade or straight carbon tax). And of course minimizing the upfront capex to get someone to actually build the thing on what they consider a reasonable payback. Or just have the government/taxpayer build them. Not saying we're anywhere near that point just how it could be done. 3. Agree here too. I was thinking more along the lines of heavy industry emissions rather than power plants. Things that are more difficult to replace with low carbon energy such as cement plants, steel mills, oil refineries etc. Of course with oil refineries their product is still a major source of emissions but reducing their source emissions would buy more time to for battery cars and to work out the bugs in the CCS system. Plus aviation fuel.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
double nine posted:One of the problems I heard of with increasing electrical vehicles is that li-ion batteries are selected because the materials are so light, but the raw materials are pretty rare. Are there technological breakthroughs in the pipeline that would be able to replace rare earth materials like kobalt in the production of batteries with materials that are more abundant and equally or almost equally lightweight? Well, people are always coming up with ways to reduce material cost. Last year I was hearing a lot about a method to replace the graphite anode in Li-ion batteries with cheaper sulfur-graphene; more recently I've heard about replacing the cobalt with iron. And of course people are trying to replace Li-ion entirely. Whether any of this stuff actually makes it to market is anyone's guess. The thing is though, battery prices have fallen steadily even while costs of cobalt and lithium have soared. It would certainly be nice if they weren't necessary, but there are plenty of less sexy innovations and efficiency gains that can push down prices.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Yet, time and consequences march on... https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/995847852029952000
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Yet, time and consequences march on... Thisisfine.jpeg
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
If you still have kids when even the laypeople most educated on this issue can't even agree that anyone should do anything to mitigate climate change, ur dumb
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:Thisisfine.jpeg 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
I like the part where the colors turn from blue to red.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
 ... Except, y'know, that our planet´s dying.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I hadn't heard of BECCS. Cool I guess, though I can't imagine it making that much of an impact. Biofuel power plants don't generate that much energy, from what I know of them. There have been a lot of sci-fi carbon scrubber ideas floated. For example: http://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ From a purely technical angle, building a machine where you put air and electricity in one side and you get air with less CO2 and some carbon blocks out the other side isn't some sort of impossible thing. The question pretty much ends up being entirely about :
BECCS is basically just the last item, for certain definitions of pit.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
I don't like how those colors go blue to red because I can read the key of a chart.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Clearly, because they colors go from cool to warmer mapped with blue to red, it's almost #fakenews
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah, people really underestimate "grow forests and bury them" as an alternative, but it both uses up a bunch of potentially surplus labor while also being really quite efficient. You just dig trenches, cut down trees and bury them forever. Get a big enough forest and you can do it sustainably & indefinitely. But people don't like the idea that their "retirement" might involve digging ditches for food (which is all and all, not a bad life in the grand scheme of things).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah, people really underestimate "grow forests and bury them" as an alternative, but it both uses up a bunch of potentially surplus labor while also being really quite efficient. You just dig trenches, cut down trees and bury them forever. Get a big enough forest and you can do it sustainably & indefinitely. Thank you, I'd never heard of this. This was the first article I found while doing an Internet search https://newrepublic.com/article/41734/burying-trees-brilliant-or-crazy New Republic, 2008 posted:But that's just the theory. There are some huge potential problems here. As Zeng himself concedes to New Scientist, burying wood in the wrong types of soil could generate methane—an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. In some areas, termites could start munching on the buried wood and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Not to mention the fact that you're taking key nutrients out of the ecosystem. Even worse, clearing dead wood away from forest floors on such a large scale could, if done clumsily, wreak havoc on a number of habitats. That's probably my biggest worry: This isn't mass deforestation, but a forest-management scheme of this sort could very easily be abused, and almost certainly would in practice.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
This poo poo combined with Israels bullshittery is pissing me off.. again! I think I need to get my happy pill dose upped... again... 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Thank you, I'd never heard of this. This was the first article I found while doing an Internet search Yeah the underlying paper is open access and a pretty interesting read: https://cbmjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1 Obviously, just a hypothetical at this point, but I think we need to be willing to consider possibilities like this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Good news guys https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/young-republicans-are-slightly-more-liberal-on-climate-change/560312/?utm_source=feed quote:Younger Republicans Are Slightly More Liberal on Climate Change this is sarcasm icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Why would a millennial even be a Republican? If they want low taxes and oppressed people they can just vote D right?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why would a millennial even be a Republican? If they want low taxes and oppressed people they can just vote D right? Alternative answer: Democrats' recent branding for working-class white men seems so terrible that it almost appears intentionally bad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why would a millennial even be a Republican? If they want low taxes and oppressed people they can just vote D right? Because openly labeling yourself further right is still a bit risque in polite society.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
So where is a good place for me, a Portuguese citizen to escape to? I currently live in the Netherlands which will likely end up underwater and apparently most of Portugal will become desert. As mentioned earlier in this thread, most of Europe will become fascist so one single mention of my name will be enough to send me to a camp. What are my options?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So where is a good place for me, a Portuguese citizen to escape to? I currently live in the Netherlands which will likely end up underwater and apparently most of Portugal will become desert. As mentioned earlier in this thread, most of Europe will become fascist so one single mention of my name will be enough to send me to a camp. What are my options? The Netherlands has absolutely kick-rear end water control measures, you're better off there than most places, and everywhere will get fashy when the constraints are on, make all the connections you can with both locals and immigrants.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The Netherlands has absolutely kick-rear end water control measures, you're better off there than most places, and everywhere will get fashy when the constraints are on, make all the connections you can with both locals and immigrants. Unfortunately I'm quite the shut in. Hope my therapist can fix it in time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So where is a good place for me, a Portuguese citizen to escape to? I currently live in the Netherlands which will likely end up underwater and apparently most of Portugal will become desert. As mentioned earlier in this thread, most of Europe will become fascist so one single mention of my name will be enough to send me to a camp. What are my options? You’ve been posting for like months that they’re going to round up all the Portugese into camps any day now. It’s not going to happen dude. You’re insane
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You’ve been posting for like months that they’re going to round up all the Portugese into camps any day now. It’s not going to happen dude. You’re insane Not "any day now", I am thinking long term here. Yes, as a white person I am definitely safer than many others but is it really that crazy to assume that once the more "obvious" (read, browner) minorities are dealt with they won't simply keep looking for scapegoats? I definitely heard one or two mention of "those lazy Southerners" in my time here, that poo poo can morph into something far worse. Not saying it will happen in 5, 10 or even 20 years, but I think it likely will. EDIT: Also, I'm not afraid of "camps", more like being beaten on the street. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
if you are this insecure about your own safety you should move somewhere that allows you to buy and open carry firearms to protect yourself from the boogeymen.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Take up iaido instead, most people won't have any armor whatsoever in a modern apocalypse
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
I've been reading a lot about how insecure europe's food chain is - is it really one bad/worse season away from mad max, or will we get to go full fash first via a slow collapse? My BFs hippy sister has a farm in Wales, and it's feeling more and more like the 'best thing to do' is move over there and roll around in sheep poo poo forever. If personal action is basically pointless, and government action is 'blame the forrins', then is there anything much to do except try to disengage and minimise the harm I cause (and also not loving breed)?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
lofi posted:I've been reading a lot about how insecure europe's food chain is - is it really one bad/worse season away from mad max, or will we get to go full fash first via a slow collapse? My BFs hippy sister has a farm in Wales, and it's feeling more and more like the 'best thing to do' is move over there and roll around in sheep poo poo forever. Food production has been growing faster than population for many decades now across the world, and Europe produces way more food than they eat, which is why they are a net exporter of basic food goods (excluding stuff like coffee/spices, which they import massively). A disruption of food supply would require a political event (see: Venezuela); droughts and floods occur all the time in Europe without major disruption. I think of greater concern than your extremely negligible impact on the planet would be your proneness to conspiratorial thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
lofi posted:I've been reading a lot about how insecure europe's food chain is - is it really one bad/worse season away from mad max, or will we get to go full fash first via a slow collapse? My BFs hippy sister has a farm in Wales, and it's feeling more and more like the 'best thing to do' is move over there and roll around in sheep poo poo forever. Define food-chain. Like Arkane elaborated on the EU (due to our comically sized agricultural subsidies) is a huge net producer of food. Most of the food-stuffs we import are the food-stuffs that are not really that important.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 05:48
|
|