|
Morbus posted:This is a very interesting and spicy take... I think the difference is between R&D costs and production costs. I'm saying we blew too much of our R&D money on aviation at a critical time. So we spent $10B of federal dollars on nuclear aviation between 1943-1963, but we spent $51.6B total on civil nuclear power R&D between 1948-1977. Spending that money on civil nuclear instead would have been a 20% boost in total federal R&D spending. Then you combine the non-federal investments in nuclear aviation, the personal investment (i.e. careers cut short when your funding gets killed), etc and you can see how it could have had such a negative impact on the industry. (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf) Senor P. posted:I thought it was a typo and he meant innovation??? Oh no I mean Nuclear Aviation, like these guys -  (again, super cool and 100% worth the stop if you're within an hour in Idaho.)
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think the difference is between R&D costs and production costs. I'm saying we blew too much of our R&D money on aviation at a critical time. So we spent $10B of federal dollars on nuclear aviation between 1943-1963, but we spent $51.6B total on civil nuclear power R&D between 1948-1977. Spending that money on civil nuclear instead would have been a 20% boost in total federal R&D spending. Then you combine the non-federal investments in nuclear aviation, the personal investment (i.e. careers cut short when your funding gets killed), etc and you can see how it could have had such a negative impact on the industry. I mean, given what the money they did spend on civil nuclear R&D got us, do you think an additional 20% would make the difference? I just don't think the problems with civil nuclear power boil down to modest deficiencies in R&D spending. The bottom line is that by the 1970s and certainly 1980's, we already knew how to make the only kind of nuclear reactors that are currently known to be practical. Our failure to build lots of those over the last 3-4 decades is due to problems with funding, economics, politics, organization, and management, not really engineering problems. Again, France's nuclear industry--which is just as large as ours--is in deep poo poo as well. Is that because they just coincidentally squandered that existentially critical 20% of R&D funding on some Nuclear Jet sized secret weapon system back in the 50's, or is it that there are broader structural problems with the industry as a whole? Now, had there been a lot more R&D spending, it's possible (though imo not super likely) that we would have ended up with radically better technology that would have been much cheaper, or safer, or powerful, or whatever. And that would have made a difference. But when you're looking to point fingers at why, say, Vogtle was a fuckfest, nuclear aviation is a weird place to land. And if you do want to place blame on nuclear funding that was diverted away from civil nuclear energy research, nuclear weapons are obviously the place to start. Some crazy failed airplane prototype is a complete drop in the budget compared to that. And there are real, direct examples of how the needs of nuclear weapons production influenced civil nuclear power (i.e. relative lack of attention to thorium)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Maybe we aren't all going to die? https://phys.org/news/2019-01-state-of-the-art-climate-crisis.html Of course this would necessitate a nearly immediate and total buy-in from world leaders and the wealthiest people on the planet, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
It's probably nicer to go out thinking that it was all unavoidable rather than knowing that we simply chose to "gently caress it" because making wealthy people do with less is never an option.
Insanite fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Insanite posted:It's probably nicer to go out thinking that it was all unavoidable rather than knowing that we simply chose to do say "gently caress it" because making wealthy people do with less is never an option. At least this way we can say that we actively decided that this was the right course of action. We stayed in power at all times!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Insanite posted:It's probably nicer to go out thinking that it was all unavoidable rather than knowing that we simply chose to do say "gently caress it" because making wealthy people do with less is never an option. Totally agreed. I get way more sadbrains when I think about how avoidable this all is than when I get fatalistic about it. Like, one of those thoughts makes me think about what a farce society is and how truly awful humans (including me) are, and how we don't really give a gently caress about anything but our current personal pleasure, the other is like "whelp, happened to the dinosaurs too"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Ironically, plastic dolls of Baby Sinclair will outlive all of us. Maybe hyperevolved cockroaches of the future will dig them up and wonder how we went so wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I’m more and more of the opinion that nuclear aviation is what doomed the US nuclear industry to its current stagnant status. The sensible approach would be to have nuke reactors on the ground creating hydrogen from water and then combining the hydrogen with extracted carbon and/or nitrogen from the atmosphere to make fuels for jet engines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1088467382090301440 Come ITT, Lindsey. Come and feel the doom and gloom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Insanite posted:https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1088467382090301440 Had to check twice that he actually - and still - is  . What a nice guy, first time in ages I enjoy a politician's Twitter account.Also, 12 years seems absurdly exaggerated. As if we make another two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that we have twelve years to completely overhaul our energy infrastructure before we're all hosed. So naturally, the GOP jumped on it with an endless stream of "lol, quiet you silly girl all the rich white people will be fine!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that we have twelve years to completely overhaul our energy infrastructure before we're all hosed. So naturally, the GOP jumped on it with an endless stream of "lol, quiet you silly girl all the rich white people will be fine!" I mean, are they wrong? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Totally, cause at the rate things are going even the rich white people are boned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Rich white people will end up living like middle-class brown people. Middle-class brown people will be ground into paste to feed formerly rich white people. This is called the circle of life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Pretty sure poor whites are gonna feel the pain too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
No. They'll be humanely euthanized and then used to make food for formerly rich white peoples' pets. On a global level, though, I'd rather be a poor white than any other variety of poor person. A poor dude in West Virginia will likely have a better time than a poor dude in Gujarat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
I mean, there's still places in West Virginia that don't have flush toilets, the educational and welfare system essentially doesn't exist there, and there's very little sense of community left as opioids have destroyed what mountaintop removal and coal ash piles didn't. There's even a few minorities in the state, I hear. But you're right that SNAP still exists, I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Phys.org: State-of-the-art climate model shows how we can solve crisis ... after two years of research and modelling, scientists have come up with a groundbreaking new framework for achieving – and even beating – the target of limiting warming to 1.5°C. The research by leading scientists at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), the German Aerospace Center and the University of Melbourne, has been funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation (LDF) as part of its new One Earth initiative. Welcoming the framework, LDF founder Leonardo DiCaprio says: "With the pace of urgent climate warnings now increasing, it's clear that our planet cannot wait for meaningful action. This ambitious and necessary pathway shows that a transition to 100% renewable energy and strong measures to protect and restore our natural ecosystems, taken together, can deliver a more stable climate within a single generation." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report warned last October that the planet must be kept below the dangerous temperature rise of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid a worsening of the climate-related impacts we are now seeing at 1°C. The 2016 Paris Climate Change Agreement set a target of keeping warming below 1.5°C. This new research has produced the most detailed energy model to date – and the first to achieve negative emissions through natural climate solutions. Its proposed transition to 100% renewables by mid-century, along with steps such as reforestation, would not only have benefits for the climate but would also create millions of permanent jobs. The researchers say this could be achieved at about a quarter of the cost of current subsidies for fossil fuels. The research models 72 regional energy grids in hourly increments through 2050 and includes a comprehensive assessment of available renewable resources such as wind and solar, along with configurations for meeting projected energy demand and storage most efficiently for all sectors over the next 30 years. "Scientists cannot fully predict the future, but advanced modelling allows us to map out the best scenarios for creating a global energy system fit for the 21st century," lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Research Director at UTS's Institute for Sustainable Futures says. "With momentum around the Paris Agreement lagging, it's crucial that decision-makers around the world can see that we can, in fact, meet global energy demand at a lower cost with clean renewables." ------- Yeah, but will we?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:
Let me guess that's also for a 67% chance of maintaining warming under 1.5c as well. We don't use any sort of sane confidence interval for the outcome distribution of climate sensitivity when talking about the future of the planet, 2/3 shot is good enough (it's also because the distribution is right-skew).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Honest question, since I saw several numbers around here in various intensities. At which rise of temperatures are we scientifically considered as "hosed"? What are the direct results out of that temperature that makes up this statement? I read that anything above 3°C is basically a death sentence, but other sources also stated 4°C, other spoke of doom at 1,5°C already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
You'll have to define "hosed" here I'm sure someone would be willing to give you hypothetical scenarios of what will happen at each degree
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
I guess you can apply various levels to that term. Ecologically, having entire ecosystems on a very large scale collapse. Geographically, having entire countries redefined or even taken off the map. Humanitarian, having a solid number of death expected directly or indirectly. And maybe hosed as in: The end of human life, the end of life itself, the end of the planet because it completely melts or whatever else can happen at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:Ecologically, having entire ecosystems on a very large scale collapse. I think this is a given in all scenarios, no? It's a matter of scale and intensity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:Honest question, since I saw several numbers around here in various intensities. At which rise of temperatures are we scientifically considered as "hosed"? What are the direct results out of that temperature that makes up this statement? Third post from the OP I quoted the IPCC's SR15 report released a few months ago, which describes a frankly optimistic 3°C scenario. That's a good start for your question. Also, it's really, really hard to predict what a 3°C and beyond world will look like overall - the climate system becomes increasingly unstable beyond 2 degrees, and it's unknown how our sociopolitical and economic systems will evolve to deal with 2°~3°. Personally, given the ongoing ecosystem apocalypse, I'd say we're already hosed as far as I'm concerned, as we've already been locked into 1.5°C warming and will for sure see the effects play out over the next two decades. But even if we're "hosed", it's important to note that it can always get worse. Much worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
I predict everyone in this thread will die of old age and be forced to accept that they chose to do nothing with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Rime gets banned but this guy is allowed to keep shiposting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I predict everyone in this thread will die of old age and be forced to accept that they chose to do nothing with their lives. lol of course its nothing you're clearly projecting
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:I guess you can apply various levels to that term. Ecological: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41670472 Geographical: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3kw77v/the-drought-that-preceded-syrias-civil-war-was-likely-the-worst-in-900-years Humanitarian: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/09/world/hurricane-maria-puerto-rico-cnnphotos/
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:can't wait to hear what you're doing
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I predict everyone in this thread will die of old age and be forced to accept that they chose to do nothing with their lives. You're already wrong, then. I don't like you at all, so you get no details. gently caress off back to CSPAM or wherever you came from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You're already wrong, then. I don't like you at all, so you get no details. gently caress off back to CSPAM or wherever you came from. I'm happy for you, but don't you think it's kinda weird how hostile people in this thread are to the idea that global warming probably wont be world ending?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm happy for you, but don't you think it's kinda weird how hostile people in this thread are to the idea that global warming probably wont be world ending?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm happy for you, but don't you think it's kinda weird how hostile people in this thread are to the idea that global warming probably wont be world ending? The main guy doing that got kicked out of the thread, thankfully. Please follow him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
Please, the slap fights are worse than the one-liners. And he's still coasting on good will from the cabbage joke imo edit: p.s. if you're serious about the cabbage text me
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
A couple of pages back there was a kindly goon that mentioned a method of boosting invertebrate numbers by soaking down bags of collected woodland soil- anyone know of a book/site with a collection of things like this to do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Third post from the OP I quoted the IPCC's SR15 report released a few months ago, which describes a frankly optimistic 3°C scenario. That's a good start for your question. That was basically described as barely possible and even if so, would be way too limited to work, which I guess is realistic, even though I wouldn't rule out some nerdy idea that might actually help in the future. Salt Fish posted:Ecological: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41670472
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:Just read that post and that is optimistic? drat. I mean the technical solutions offered to reduce carbon dioxide emissions seem realistic, especially since they will mainly stay in the hands of industrialized, wealthy countries, but how likely is it that we get any kind of larger-scale technology at some point that is able to reduce CO2 (and other greenhouse gases I guess) out of the atmosphere? I roughly remember some goon doing the math on this, and it was indeed quite unrealistic on the necessary scale. However as a supplement to all other measures it's not That unfeasible as I understand it. Some working plants already suck 1000s of tons out of the atmosphere at prices below 300 usd per Ton. Expected scaling reduction in the price could reach a level below 100 usd per Ton according to a company called carbon engineering. One study from Nov. 2018 says ccs methods have become much cheaper than benchmark costs, at 45 usd per Tonne. This however is coupled to a power plant so not exactly normal air. Unfortunately I'm on mobile and can't link em, this is just from the top of my head. So values could be off by a bit. Something I find interesting about this is that it assumes normal market factors as the price drivers, one technology claims energy costs of 334 kWh per Ton of co2 extracted, which would have to be bought from the electrical market at market prices, so between 15 and 30 cents per kWh, which is already between 50 and 100 usd per Ton just for the energy. If you coupled these extractors to wind or solar power however, and run them in times when the market price drops below a profitable threshold due to overproduction, you could propably reduce prices significantly. If there's an impetus for people to provide these machines with cheap or at cost electrical prices (for example the looming destruction of our civilisation) it might get a lot more feasible. However, and this is a big reason why people say it's unfeasible, almost all other methods of reducing co2 emissions are currently way cheaper than carbon capture. Saving energy and transforming the energy industry is all much cheaper and quicker than pumping out carbon and sucking it back in. Most studies assume that carbon capture becomes interesting and widespread near the middle of this century, as other methods of reduction are becoming more expensive compared to the effect. I personally hope it develops further and that a few breakthroughs speed up the development, and I haven't dismissed it, but it's never the silver bullet some people want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
Carbon capture is last in the list of things we need to promote and implement, because while it's ultimately necessary to actually achieve negative emissions, it's highly inefficient and even dangerous by potentially serving as an "enabler" element of sorts for our current socioeconomic structures. You know - "why change, when we can just engineer a solution that lets us keep emitting?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
The reason we will never solve climate change is because some people think it's more important to "fix humanity" than to take carbon out of the air. loving hippies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Phys.org: State-of-the-art climate model shows how we can solve crisis The land use ones are the hardest to imagine will actually happen. How do you convince Indonesia not to level their rainforest for palm oil plantations? Through giving their people shitloads of Western money, that's how, and that's why (imo) it'll never happen. drilldo squirt posted:I'm happy for you, but don't you think it's kinda weird how hostile people in this thread are to the idea that global warming probably wont be world ending? I think per the latest SR15 that your viewpoint is actually anti-science at this point. How do you feel about vaccines and nuclear power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:15
|
|