|
Still woulda been nice if China had decided to build even 25 new nuclear reactors back in the 90s in place of at least some of the massive coal power expansion they did from then through the early 2010s.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Still woulda been nice if China had decided to build even 25 new nuclear reactors back in the 90s in place of at least some of the massive coal power expansion they did from then through the early 2010s. Their first nuclear power reactor was 1991, and was largely a very low output design (325MW), so this is really a pretty new industry for them but most of their new reactors are Gen III minimum. They've ramped up really quickly, largely using modified designs from other countries, especially France.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their first nuclear power reactor was 1991, and was largely a very low output design (325MW), so this is really a pretty new industry for them but most of their new reactors are Gen III minimum. They've ramped up really quickly, largely using modified designs from other countries, especially France. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/ quote:The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-19/china-s-far-from-done-with-coal-as-regulator-eases-new-plant-ban quote:China allowed 11 provinces and regions to resume building coal power plants, in another sign that the world’s largest energy user is far from finished with the most-polluting fossil fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/ And your answer to this is: Sell them subsidized Natural Gas, which means increase in fracking/drilling in the US, which means increased methane emissions, which means a net increase in greenhouse gasses. What a solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And your answer to this is: Sell them subsidized Natural Gas, which means increase in fracking/drilling in the US, which means increased methane emissions, which means a net increase in greenhouse gasses. I don't know why you keep making up things and attributing them to me. Well really I do know, you're just enjoying the rage-boner you're getting from shouting at people on the internet. But it suffices to say that is not my answer to this, it has never been my answer to this, and I have never offered it as an answer to this and you should stop with the strawman histrionics. But perhaps you'd like to retract this, now? CommieGIR posted:But its DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHINA DOES. Because it very obviously does matter what China does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
China is also building a massive network of high speed railways, which will be quite helpful. And they've been fighting desertification with huge reforestation projects. Basically the Chinese method of doing big projects is exactly the kind of methodology that the rest of the world needs to adopt. They're building coal plants because they want to bring the rural areas into line with the rest of the country, and they need power to do that. The best way to influence that towards clean energy is to fund publicly accessible research into improved solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear designs, and to make environmental issues part of any trade negotiations (i.e. Elizabeth Warren's plan to do just that)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Kaal posted:China is also building a massive network of high speed railways, which will be quite helpful. And they've been fighting desertification with huge reforestation projects. Basically the Chinese method of doing big projects is exactly the kind of methodology that the rest of the world needs to adopt. They're building coal plants because they want to bring the rural areas into line with the rest of the country, and they need power to do that. The best way to influence that towards clean energy is to fund publicly accessible research into improved solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear designs, and to make environmental issues part of any trade negotiations (i.e. Elizabeth Warren's plan to do just that) Do you have a link too this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Because it very obviously does matter what China does. Context must be hard for you: Your argument was "china is building coal plants, so lets give them gas. But since China is the world's major emitter, what does it matter if we emit?" That's why China doesn't matter IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH OUR ENERGY GENERATION FRAMED AROUND REACTING TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS Take that whataboutism and walk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Context must be hard for you: Your argument was "china is building coal plants, so lets give them gas. At no point did I argue this. I think you're having trouble following who you're arguing with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Do you have a link too this? Elizabeth Warren published an article on Medium talking about her intended changes to trade policy, and has brought it up several times in the debates. In short she wants to reformulate the American approach to trade policy, and ensure that more stakeholders are involved in the process - expressly including environmentalists, union reps, and other critical perspectives that are often shut out of discussions by the Republican elites. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/new-approach-trade https://medium.com/@teamwarren/trade-on-our-terms-ad861879feca
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:At no point did I argue this. I think you're having trouble following who you're arguing with. Forgive me, it may have been one of the other Natural Gas advocates, not you. Regardless: "clean natural gas" is just as much a misnomer as "clean coal" was. Its not clean. Its 'better', but still loaded with environmental baggage, and advocating for another fossil fuel just to shift from one to the other, especially in natural gasses case where its 4 x as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, makes no sense especially give the current crises we face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
I’m at a regional entity conference and a NERC director claimed in his presentation during an aside on the rate of battery storage rollout that it would take 200 years at current production rates to run the US grid for one night. Looking good!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That does not meet demand. We cannot simply build enough solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. fast enough to replace the loss of power from fossil fuels. Shut down fossil fuels as quickly as practical under a max speed renewable/nuke rollout instead of replacing fossil fuels with different fossil fuels. You imbecile. You loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Wow, I haven't kept up with the thread for a few days and wasn't expecting to read/skim 300 new posts about how fossil fuels are actually good, you guys. Wind is now cheaper than the cost of fueling existing natural gas facilities: Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas quote:As a result, recent wind farms have gotten so cheap that you can build and operate them for less than the expected cost of buying fuel for an equivalent natural gas plant. So I don't even think we need to worry that much about gas/fracking, wind is going to eat its lunch. (I'm not saying anything at all about nukes, nukes are fine we should build some, all hail the mighty Nuke and whatever else to appease the church of nuke)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Wow, I haven't kept up with the thread for a few days and wasn't expecting to read/skim 300 new posts about how fossil fuels are actually good, you guys. The swath of land from Texas to Canada is the "Saudi Arabia of Wind Energy Potential". We need a grid that can distribute this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Wow, I haven't kept up with the thread for a few days and wasn't expecting to read/skim 300 new posts about how fossil fuels are actually good, you guys. Later this week I’ll scour the internet for the most basic global energy consumption numbers. Just finding something now shows Renewables and Nuclear only account for a just a third of current demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Later this week I’ll scour the internet for the most basic global energy consumption numbers. Sure is weird how when you've built far more fossil than renewable and nuke, renewable and nuke aren't a majority yet, huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Later this week I’ll scour the internet for the most basic global energy consumption numbers. Strange, I thought you were discussing future capacity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Later this week I’ll scour the internet for the most basic global energy consumption numbers. That's electricity production, not energy consumption. Nuclear and renewables are roughly a third of electrical demand, but only about 10% of energy demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Let's see what the IPCC says about gas: Good luck getting wind projects approved, even in California
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Let's see what the IPCC says about gas: "Provided the fugitive emissions associated with extraction are low or mitigated" Given the current state of our administration, and the batshit insane push to deregulate emissions and environmental, that situation does not exist. And given what IPCC has now said about actual emissions and data exceeding even their most dire of models, we cannot afford to risk it anymore. Fossil fuels for power do not have a future in our current crisis unless we simply give in to accepting that we're going to see 2 degree + of average climate increase. Stop proposing Natural Gas as a "environmentally sound" solution, because we don't live in that scenario. Trump is in the White House, Gas/Oil lobbyists run the EPA, and we're in the middle of repealing the clean air and water acts. This is not a conducive environment to proposing Natural Gas as a "clean solution".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Trump is in the White House preventing regulation of gas, so let’s use magic to do other things despite Trump being in the White House is a good take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Trump is in the White House preventing regulation of gas, so let’s use magic to do other things despite Trump being in the White House is a good take. Even when Trump is out of the white house, the damage he's done to regulation is going to take some time to fix. So we don't need to encourage the Natural Gas path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Trump is in the White House preventing regulation of gas, so let’s use magic to do other things despite Trump being in the White House is a good take. I don’t understand what this post is supposed to imply? That we’re doomed and we should do nothing? That trying to build more nuke/renewable generation is impossible so why try? At what point does it make sense to just say “we should stop using natural gas”? When everyone already agrees? What are you gaining by acting like it’s pragmatic to support anything but renewables and nukes? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Trump is in the White House preventing regulation of gas, so let’s use magic to do other things despite Trump being in the White House is a good take. perhaps the problem is that you're expecting us to my only advice is to start with the ecosystems that the 1% use 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
One of you is famous. https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1179908480322289664?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
She makes a strong case. https://youtu.be/Bd8bQYD5I5I
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
I mean, someone has to modernise A Modest Proposal for TYOOL 2019,
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Venomous posted:I mean, someone has to modernise A Modest Proposal for TYOOL 2019, https://twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/1180110188952588288?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Hello my fellow marxists. Who of us wouldn't want to try a baby if it weren't illegal, am I right? Hoooo boy, I sure would *clumsily adjusts hidden microphone*
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
She was a Larouche, so that could still, odsly, follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Cage-free, organic babies are a nice sentiment but the economies of scale are just unfeasible once you try and feed a global population.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Kids learn this on Sesame Street from Cookie Monster, this isn't that hard. Babies are a 'sometimes' food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:One of you is famous. This was done by - no surprise - some right wingers trying to discredit AOC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:This was done by - no surprise - some right wingers trying to discredit AOC. LaRouchites are such weird, culty people, even for Republicans. I remember when he came to the Oregon High School Mock World Congress and they all got thrown out after his speech because some of them were snorting cocaine in the bathroom. AOC, for her part, just thought the woman was either mentally ill or having some sort of crisis breakdown. Which is adorably empathetic, and also a very funny interpretation of a LaRouchite doing their schtick. I'm sure she's privately-thinking: "Oh you're an idiot Republican? I thought you were just broken." Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I would have really liked AOC to make a Swift reference to make it seem like the Nazi was joking, but oh well
Venomous fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Kaal posted:LaRouchites are such weird, culty people, even for Republicans. LaRouche never ran as Republican. He ran as a Democrat 7 times. The only elections LaRouchian candidates have won, have been as Democrats. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:LaRouche never ran as Republican. He ran as a Democrat 7 times. His disciples seem to be unaware of that. People making Larouchie arguments are invariably Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:His disciples seem to be unaware of that. People making Larouchie arguments are invariably Republicans. This is revisionism in the plainest sense. LaRouche started as a *leftist* movement, and LaRouche himself was a Marxist. The LaRouchies want to reinstate Glass-Stegall, nationalize the banks, put a moratorium on farm and third-world debt, nationalize the steel industry, and implement FDR-style infrastructure development. They also are global-warming denialists, thought the ozone hole was a hoax, wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, and opposed the Gulf War. Cults don’t fit nearly on the whole Republican-Democrat axis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
LaRouchites don't have a coherent political philosophy, and their ideas vary wildly depending on the current issues du jour and the location of each group, but are nonetheless largely composed of Republicans. Which largely makes sense if you think about what kind of voters are going to be interested in backing a cult of personality who's political views are dominated by conspiracy theories and rabid anti-minority rabble-rousing. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:38
|
|