|
Thug Lessons posted:Again, the technology is the same whether you're using it for fossil fuels or not. You either support developing the technology or you don't. The distinction between fossil and non-fossil CCS does not exist.
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
spf3million posted:
That's how I see it. The carbon XPrize technologies are interesting to learn about but only useful to the extent they offset the significant cost of CCS. I guess we'll see if they perform well-enough under realistic settings that they could conceivably lead to a significant reduction in the future cost of fossil fuel+CCS electricity generation, but it seems like they almost certainly will not for reasons of scale if nothing else. They might have a role in reducing the cost of making cement or similar industrial processes in a society seriously pursuing negative emissions. Trabisnikof posted:The "Carbon X Prize" is explicitly judged based on the team's ability to capture CO2 from either coal or natural gas flue gas, so yeah that's exactly what the competition is about. Yeah that's the constraint of the competition but apparently most of the teams end up purifying the CO2 anyway so they can likely be applied to any point source of CO2. That's a good point about their funding coming from fossil fuel energy companies. In a lot of press reports/interviews the techs in the competition are clearly pitched as a potential means to enable continue fossil fuel power generation when that's a really doubtful proposition.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Is the technology the same? Wouldn't there be significant differences in the design of something meant for a hot point source, vs. something meant to scrub the atmosphere? I suppose the latter might just be a version of the former with a few extra steps, but I could see a different approach being more appropriate for a different source. Maybe the scrubber approach is much more efficient creating some largely inert carbon compound/mass, where the point source technology can more efficiently create industrially useful chemicals. There is a big difference in between scrubbing CO2 from flue gas where it's highly concentrated, i.e. CCS, and what we call direct air capture (DAC), i.e. "scrubbing the atmosphere" where CO2 is present only in minute concentrations. However the main proposed method of net-negative emissions, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), relies on scrubbing CO2 from flue gas in a bioenergy plant, not on sucking it directly from the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
E: I'm an idiot, and should read better.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There is a big difference in between scrubbing CO2 from flue gas where it's highly concentrated, i.e. CCS, and what we call direct air capture (DAC), i.e. "scrubbing the atmosphere" where CO2 is present only in minute concentrations. However the main proposed method of net-negative emissions, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), relies on scrubbing CO2 from flue gas in a bioenergy plant, not on sucking it directly from the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
There are probably hundreds of sentient species on this planet, what are you... oh wait, you're one of those clowns who doesn't know the difference between sentient and sapient, my bad. Anyway, I disagree vehemently on this "humans are the only thing that matters" bullshit. If you could sacrifice 100% of the biomass in exchange for our continued existence, I would sabotage you out of spite. Because if we need that kind of bargain, the universe would be better of trying again with another species a couple million years later.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
the "sacrifice all the biomass of the earth in exchange to keep humanity alive" completely ignores that there is literally no way for humans to exist outside of that biosphere humans can be the "only thing that matter" (I think calling it a 'starting point for a moral framework') and it's not inconsistent with defending and valuing other life on earth. beyond that, you're going to get into some very sticky discussions of "what is a human" since iirc ~50% of your own biomass is not "human"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Two bears, one is about to attack a baby elephant, one is about to attack an exceedingly racist 80 year old man. You have one bullet. Which one do you shoot?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
How many ants would it take to be ethically worse to kill than one elephant?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Two bears, one is about to attack a baby elephant, one is about to attack an exceedingly racist 80 year old man. You have one bullet. Which one do you shoot? the old man
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Over 99% of ants will not have children #ClimateRoleModels
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Libluini posted:There are probably hundreds of sentient species on this planet, what are you... oh wait, you're one of those clowns who doesn't know the difference between sentient and sapient, my bad. Oh, well gently caress. I, as a non-native english speaker, appear to have written sentient when I meant sapient. How utterly unforgivable. Well, I guess you win now, or something? Good to know your seething misanthropy wouldn't allow you to in this completely make-believe situation sacrifice the current biomass of earth - which is 100% going to permanently die when the sun does and constitutes less than 1% of all life that has inhabited our planet since the formation of the solar system - in exchange for the survival of something that might be unique to the universe and may never arrive again, for all we know. It's a false and ridiculous choice, yes, which is why I selected that particular piece of extreme hyperbole to illustrate the point that was being discussed, but there's no way to refute that the only way any of the living things on this planet survives beyond some coming permanent complete extinction event is in some form through humans. Unless you're suggesting that life will inhabit earth indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Oh, well gently caress. I, as a non-native english speaker, appear to have written sentient when I meant sapient. How utterly unforgivable. Well, I guess you win now, or something? Oh, I guess not believing humans are special unique snowflakes is misanthropy in your universe. Too bad I live in the real world, though. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Oh, well gently caress. I, as a non-native english speaker, appear to have written sentient when I meant sapient. How utterly unforgivable. Well, I guess you win now, or something? Are you implying humanity won't permanently die when the sun goes?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Are you implying humanity won't permanently die when the sun goes?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Oh, I guess not believing humans are special unique snowflakes is misanthropy in your universe. Too bad I live in the real world, though. Well here is the problem. Either humans are "special unique snowflakes", and therefore whatever special responsibilities they might have towards the natural world they are also afforded special rights, or they're not, and they're just another species with no particular rights or responsibilities. And in my book, all of the questions worth discussing are on the former half of that dichotomy. If I was inclined towards the latter, I wouldn't care if human activity caused species extinction any more than I'd be upset when a lion eats a gazelle.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
so about that climate change thing
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:so about that climate change thing can you phrase that in the form of "two bears are doing something and you have one bullet"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well here is the problem. Either humans are "special unique snowflakes", and therefore whatever special responsibilities they might have towards the natural world they are also afforded special rights, or they're not, and they're just another species with no particular rights or responsibilities. And in my book, all of the questions worth discussing are on the former half of that dichotomy. If I was inclined towards the latter, I wouldn't care if human activity caused species extinction any more than I'd be upset when a lion eats a gazelle.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Those special rights don't say anything about humans being valued about other life though. The responsibility we're talking about comes from our ability to affect the world, and the only right we get from that is the right to use it. It doesn't follow at all that humanity has the right to be elevated above other species in any kind of moral question. This is not a tenable position. We don't assign responsibilities to other species based on their ability to affect the world, we just assume however they happen to affect the world (at least within their native environment) is what they naturally do. It's only with humans that we believe power carries some sort of responsibility. As usual, we find them unique, which is unsurprising given that we're humans.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Some people here believe humans are inherently morally much more value than any animal. Others disagree. Can we just leave it at that?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Some people here believe humans are inherently morally much more value than any animal. Others disagree. Can we just leave it at that? Thug Lessons posted:This is not a tenable position. We don't assign responsibilities to other species based on their ability to affect the world, we just assume however they happen to affect the world (at least within their native environment) is what they naturally do. It's only with humans that we believe power carries some sort of responsibility. As usual, we find them unique, which is unsurprising given that we're humans.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Here's a nice summary of the ongoing battle over a proposed transmission line from Quebec to Massachusets for the purpose of increasing Massachusetts' renewable energy consumption:The Free Press posted:Legislators Battle with LePage Over CMP’s Proposed Transmission Line This story caught my eye as it seemed a clear example of established fossil-fuel generators using the political process to oppose even a relatively small increase in renewable energy. However I'm surprised to see that the Sierra Club opposes this transmission line and its failed predecessor (Northern Pass) : The Sierra Club posted:In response, Emily Norton, Massachusetts Sierra Club Chapter Director and Catherine Corkery, New Hampshire Sierra Club Chapter Director said the following: The main problem with renewable energy is intermittent generation. Upgrading the electric grid to cover a wider area makes temporary local shortfalls less of an issue and increases the feasibility of increased renewable generation. However the argument here is increasing transmission capacity should be opposed because renewable energy providers might divert energy away from areas that consequently will be forced to increase fossil fuel usage. I think the Sierra Club does good work so I don't understand their opposition to the project, aside from the associated development of a forested region.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Spending a billion dollars on a 1200MW transmission line is insanely wasteful. You could build an entire power plant for that price. But the reality is, since we've committed to renewables, we'll be spending trillions upon trillions on it. This isn't really a renewables issue though, because hydro is not intermittent. It's just graft designed to put taxpayer money into energy company pockets. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As long as we agree that it is just that, a belief. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Values are mental states Synapses, synapses all the way down.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Spending a billion dollars on a 1200MW transmission line is insanely wasteful. You could build an entire power plant for that price. But the reality is, since we've committed to renewables, we'll be spending trillions upon trillions on it. Serious question what's the difference between spending a billion dollars to construct a 1200MW transmission line vs spending a billion dollars to construct a power plant with 1200MV capacity? It's the same amount of renewable capacity as far as Massachusetts is concerned. In your opinion what's a good price for constructing 1200MW capacity? One billion USD seems to be in the right ballpark:  Also what's your argument here? We shouldn't build renewable power, or we shouldn't build long-distance transmission lines, or that this specific project is more expensive that it should be? Do you agree with the Sierra Club's assessment that this project might actually raise CO2 emissions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Serious question what's the difference between spending a billion dollars to construct a 1200MW transmission line vs spending a billion dollars to construct a power plant with 1200MV capacity? Well at the most basic level you're either adding new capacity or you aren't. They're importing Canadian hydro power, which already has plenty of domestic customers, from 30, 50, 80 year-old dams. It can "raise Massachusetts's renewables rate" while doing absolutely nothing for the environment, essentially giving the utilities a billion dollars to build a completely unnecessary 150-mile transmission line across the wilderness so that a bureaucrat can make the numbers on a graph look nicer. quote:It's the same amount of renewable capacity as far as Massachusetts is concerned. In your opinion what's a good price for constructing 1200MW capacity? One billion USD seems to be in the right ballpark: My argument is: why can't MA decarbonize? Why are they so desperate they have to resort to hare-brained schemes like this? They've spent the past decade aggressively building solar, but for some bizarre reason no one could have anticipated that doesn't work that well. And how much worse is the problem going to get once they complete their ongoing process of shuttering the nuclear plants, leaving the lackluster renewables sector as the sole domestic power source? Are they going to build another transmission line, maybe this time to Mexico instead of Canada, and take their hydro power too? Literally anything would be better. Build 1200 MW of offshore wind. Extend loans for a nuclear power plant. Even build a natural gas plant and import less coal power. Don't throw the money away on a boondoggle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Side question. Is bringing up posters that participate in this thread, their posts in other sub-forums allowed if it's germane or ads information to how they are discussing climate change? Or is that considered inter-forum drama or otherwise frowned upon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
I don't believe humans are uniquely special and I also don't believe that's misanthropy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
call to action posted:I don't believe humans are uniquely special and I also don't believe that's misanthropy. Aren't you the dude who deliberately opted out of organ donation even though you ride a motorcycle and came into this thread to brag about it? We don't need big words like "misanthropy"; you're just a gigantic selfish rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Rather than another CTA TL slapfight, we just need to increase concrete consumption. Time to build giant concrete monuments to our idiocy and hubris! *coal fired power station on horizon* Oh wait nm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Man, just when you thought the short-sighted stupidity of the administration couldn't get more absurd and self-parodic: https://twitter.com/jendlouhyhc/status/1002386812038414338
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Man, just when you thought the short-sighted stupidity of the administration couldn't get more absurd and self-parodic: I'm a field engineer for a large grid operator and I have no idea what this will mean or how good/bad/stupid this is. I suspect it will vary widely by plant. For nuke/coal plants that are in decent shape and haven't been mothballed too badly, it might not be bad financially. For some of the plants in my area that have been idled for years but are still on the books as operable, it would be hilarious as hell if they wound up on the Must Run List.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
US energy markets probably require massive amounts of government intervention but not like this
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:US energy markets probably require massive amounts of government intervention but I have strong feelings on this based on personal experience. Let's just say that deregulation has been a hilarious disaster and this is one of the industries that needs oversight most to ensure reliability and the public good. It's up there with public water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
I don't know the law here, but I think if they actually go through with that it's going to end up in court. And they couldn't get the last iteration of this scheme, (which was actually a lot more mild than that description, giving subsidies to nuclear and coal), past the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, despite most of the board being appointed by Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Side question. Is bringing up posters that participate in this thread, their posts in other sub-forums allowed if it's germane or ads information to how they are discussing climate change? Or is that considered inter-forum drama or otherwise frowned upon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
This thread is great when it’s talking about science and not so great when it’s sanctimonious Kant impersonator vs edgelord left-wing misanthrope slapfight
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 13:13
|
|
