|
Pentagon predicts total collapse of US Military in 20 years due to climate change, mostly because our infrastructure is going to buckle under all of the ongoing changes caused by rising sea levels, worse storms, worse and longer heat waves / droughts, etc. We are so completely hosed lol
|
# ? Oct 25, 2019 11:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 13:42 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Climate change is anti-imperialist. Fossil fuel company CEOs are comrades, drill baby drill.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2019 13:01 |
|
What the gently caress even is this post?
|
# ? Oct 26, 2019 01:55 |
|
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1188805779496882183
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 14:17 |
|
anti-nuclear folks really showing they don't care about human life and just think the cooling towers are scary.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 17:43 |
|
Good blog post about high energy prices in winter and mortality
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 18:30 |
|
......so, just from looking over their Twitter and their articles, a lot of arguments about "Cheap Energy" and they don't like rooftop solar, and are kind of in the middle over PG&E? Lot of emphasis on Natural Gas It mostly looks like an Economics institute, which is garbage science. Nearly every one of their site is mostly MBAs, and a lot of guys from Exxon and other groups. Exxon notable for being major climate change deniers. Let's check out some of their other articles, like: Are Oil Executive Overpaid (They don't clearly say yes or no...) https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2018/09/04/are-oil-and-gas-executives-overpaid/ These are economists. Not scientists. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:17 |
|
CommieGIR posted:......so, just from looking over their Twitter and their articles, a lot of arguments about "Cheap Energy" and they don't like rooftop solar, and are kind of in the middle over PG&E? Lot of emphasis on Natural Gas And...? Whether climate change exists and how much is a scientific issue. Whether to do anything about it, how, and how much, are political and economic issues.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:36 |
|
"High energy prices kill the poor" doesn't strike me as the hottest of takes. The problem lies in then going "and that's why we need to maintain the status quo" or "and that's why we need to give the surviving Koch tax exempt status forever".
Marxalot fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:40 |
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:And...? Ah yes, economists. The guys who got us in this mess, and openly pushed climate change denial and deregulation. They'll save us this time. Let alone a think tank that may be funded by Exxon. Marxalot posted:"High energy prices kill the poor" doesn't strike me as the hottest of takes. Its not, but their argument is basically: "If we stop using fossil fuels completely, everyone will suffer" the problem is "No poo poo, but what are you going to do to offset their suffering down the road as a result of their use rather than continuing to promote their use" The problem isn't that energy prices don't kill people, they do. The PROBLEM is a think tank that is publishing articles about how Oil CEOs may not be overpaid, might not be the best source for defending continued use of fossil fuels. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:41 |
|
High energy prices do kill people, but we could have cheap clean electricity from a nuclear reactor heating up places instead of burning gas for it.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:42 |
|
Celexi posted:High energy prices do kill people, but we could have cheap clean electricity from a nuclear reactor heating up places instead of burning gas for it. Yeah, the argument of we need cheap energy, thus we must burn fossil fuels is completely stupid. I see it quite frequently in regards to people burning fuel in harsh winter climates. The idea that some people burning heating oil is the problem when we are burning bunker fuel is annoying. Use nuclear for electricity, and electric heating where feasible. I'm not going to hate on someone just trying to keep their family warm however. The issue is when fossil fuel companies then try to use the people fueling their heater in winter as a reason they should exist. Pretty sure we can supply heating oil without much issue even if we scale back fossil fuel production significantly.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:49 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah, the argument of we need cheap energy, thus we must burn fossil fuels is completely stupid. I see it quite frequently in regards to people burning fuel in harsh winter climates. The idea that some people burning heating oil is the problem when we are burning bunker fuel is annoying. Exactly. And again, the carbon footprint doesn't make home heating the major issue anyways. But massively expanding Natural Gas as a Power Generation method and subsidizing it (outside of as a home heating solution) is a mistake. It will just encourage a fracking/drilling boom.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:54 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah yes, economists. The guys who got us in this mess, and openly pushed climate change denial and deregulation. They'll save us this time. also rooftop solar is an expensive bourgeois boondoggle unless the goal is power grid decentralization in more rural disaster prone areas, put the panels down somewhere where they're easier to install/maintain A Literal McKinsey Dipshit posted:We could use public money to weatherize homes of low income folks in order to lower their heating and cooling costs. The only causal evidence on this I can find is that these programs are expensive, people do not take them up at high rates and they deliver only some of the savings engineers promise us. [Partial FAIL] e: we should think carefully about just charging extra for natural gas in the summer instead of directly giving money to the poor or revamping the grid in any way. This is wonky, but clever! e2: He comes off more as a bog standard Serious Liberal than some glassy eyed fossil fuels industry psychopath, for what little that's worth. They're half the reason we're in this mess lmao Marxalot fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 19:59 |
|
Marxalot posted:
Wait, why does his CV include his married status and name of spouse? That's kinda creepy. Rooftop solar is an expensive boondoggle, right now. But it has some benefits, largely offset usage costs, but the bigger problem is local power companies going out of their way to attack rooftop solar by charging for it being attached to the grid. Marxalot posted:e2: He comes off more as a bog standard Serious Liberal than some glassy eyed fossil fuels industry psychopath, for what little that's worth. They're half the reason we're in this mess lmao Yeah, a couple of the articles try to go to bat for Nuclear, but they are so focused on the economics of it, they largely dismiss it as "Too expensive" Which is why economists such as sources for valid methods for addressing climate change: Eventually that bill will come due, and the market will just shake its head and go "We're not paying that, more cheap energy please" CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 20:06 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Wait, why does his CV include his married status and name of spouse? That's kinda creepy. It's always going to be far, far more effective to throw down 1MW of solar panels in a cow pasture somewhere than it would be to toss 250k individual 4kW installs on random houses. Not to mention having to maintain the drat things. As for the economists, they're pretty hit or miss. Mostly miss since if you want to make any money at all as an economist you basically need to be a status quo guy who doesn't rock the boat. e: extremely fast google indicates large photovoltaic installations being about a dollar/watt and home ones being like $3-4 lol Marxalot fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 20:15 |
|
Marxalot posted:It's always going to be far, far more effective to throw down 1MW of solar panels in a cow pasture somewhere than it would be to toss 250k individual 4kW installs on random houses. Not to mention having to maintain the drat things. Of course, centralized power generation will always be more efficient, agreed.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 20:22 |
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:And...? "Whether to do anything about it" is not an economics issue. It may be a political issue, even if it's dismaying to say that "should the human race continue to persist" is a political issue
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 20:32 |
|
CommieGIR posted:......so, just from looking over their Twitter and their articles, a lot of arguments about "Cheap Energy" and they don't like rooftop solar, and are kind of in the middle over PG&E? Lot of emphasis on Natural Gas You're wrong on that institute, these aren't some Exxon funded climate deniers. Severin Borenstein is frequently in the papers for energy related issues, you can easily see he's pro-renewables and a believer in climate change. I'm the first one to make fun of economists, but these guys understand the energy utilities and markets more than 99% of people who talk about energy. They don't like rooftop solar because it doesn't make nearly as much sense as grid scale solar projects, which is common sense. And of course they have emphasis on natural gas, they are interested in real world solutions that actually work, but we don't need to cover that again because you won't actually put forward an actual solution.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 21:17 |
|
Unironically posting "This institute doesn't shill for oil companies, they just suggest that we have no choice but to extract and use fossil fuels as quickly as possible" The entire premise of using harm to poor people as a justification for expanding natural gas extraction is completely flawed since it's poor people who are already being hit hardest by climate change. Wow, 10k fewer fatalities/year in the winter thanks to cheap natural gas, that's great drill baby drill! Oh, what's that, climate change already kills over 10x that number/year, and is predicted to kill 25x that number/year by 2030? Eh
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 21:30 |
|
LOL if you believe climate change is killing 100k people a year. And yes, the poor people being hit the hardest by climate change are really worried about it, just ask the people in Ecuador how happy they were when gas subsidies went away recently. My point also wasn't to argue that the blog was the definitive site on policy, just to provide more information that a lack of cheap power can kill people. That same blog will also talk about the finer points of if you make electricity cleaner and cheaper, you can switch water heaters and home heating from gas to electric and lower emissions.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 21:40 |
|
Marxalot posted:It's always going to be far, far more effective to throw down 1MW of solar panels in a cow pasture somewhere than it would be to toss 250k individual 4kW installs on random houses. Not to mention having to maintain the drat things. Yeah, that's because 250k * 4kW = 1GW
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 22:40 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Rooftop solar is an expensive boondoggle, right now. But it has some benefits, largely offset usage costs, but the bigger problem is local power companies going out of their way to attack rooftop solar by charging for it being attached to the grid. You either pay for it to be attached to the grid, or you don't get attached to the grid and live or die by your solar. Otherwise rich people with solar are being subsidized by poor people paying the full freight of the transmission/distribution system that goes directly into their MW consumed price. You can save on your avoided generation capital/fuel costs, but cost shifting away the distribution/transmission share is a bad idea. Incidentally, our local rooftop solar shuts down entirely when the grid goes down, so as to avoid feeding surplus energy into the line and shocking crews fixing the grid. I imagine they've gone with this scheme rather than making the solar units entirely island the house as a cost saving measure. Apparatchik Magnet fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 22:52 |
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Yeah, that's because 250k * 4kW = 1GW MomJeans420 posted:You're wrong on that institute, these aren't some Exxon funded climate deniers. Severin Borenstein is frequently in the papers for energy related issues, you can easily see he's pro-renewables and a believer in climate change. I'm the first one to make fun of economists, but these guys understand the energy utilities and markets more than 99% of people who talk about energy. They don't like rooftop solar because it doesn't make nearly as much sense as grid scale solar projects, which is common sense. And of course they have emphasis on natural gas, they are interested in real world solutions that actually work, but we don't need to cover that again because you won't actually put forward an actual solution. "Throw solar and nuclear everywhere" is an actual solution that works. QuarkJets posted:Unironically posting "This institute doesn't shill for oil companies, they just suggest that we have no choice but to extract and use fossil fuels as quickly as possible" The article concluded that they should charge -more- in the summer when demand is low in order to subsidize the winter costs. Unless you're implying that jacking up the prices and just letting the poor die is preferable as they'd continue to consume energy otherwise, but that's a bit too "we must cull the useless eaters of food" for my personal tastes. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 22:52 |
|
QuarkJets posted:"Whether to do anything about it" is not an economics issue. It may be a political issue, even if it's dismaying to say that "should the human race continue to persist" is a political issue If the costs of fixing/delaying climate change are higher than the costs of living with it, that's an economic issue. Apparatchik Magnet fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 22:55 |
|
MomJeans420 posted:You're wrong on that institute, these aren't some Exxon funded climate deniers. Severin Borenstein is frequently in the papers for energy related issues, you can easily see he's pro-renewables and a believer in climate change. I'm the first one to make fun of economists, but these guys understand the energy utilities and markets more than 99% of people who talk about energy. They don't like rooftop solar because it doesn't make nearly as much sense as grid scale solar projects, which is common sense. And of course they have emphasis on natural gas, they are interested in real world solutions that actually work, but we don't need to cover that again because you won't actually put forward an actual solution. You also openly cheer for expanded Natural Gas power generation in the middle of a Methane crisis, but Must just be the economists. MomJeans420 posted:LOL if you believe climate change is killing 100k people a year. And yes, the poor people being hit the hardest by climate change are really worried about it, just ask the people in Ecuador how happy they were when gas subsidies went away recently. Holy gently caress dude, might as well just slap a "Drill, Baby, Drill" sticker on you. So, lemme get this straight: Climate change is or is not a problem? And your argument is that people are not suffering and possibly dying under it? But you are pro-Environmentalism? And your solution is to.....trust the same companies who openly fight regulation and environmentalism to, somehow, this time get it right and be clean. With a fuel that has 4x the greenhouse gas footprint than the carbon we are trying to replace. I'm sure they'll be trustworthy this time around. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Oct 28, 2019 |
# ? Oct 28, 2019 23:34 |
|
Celexi posted:High energy prices do kill people, but we could have cheap clean electricity from a nuclear reactor heating up places instead of burning gas for it. Or we would have social welfare. High energy prices don’t have to kill people.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 23:34 |
|
Marxalot posted:
May you define work? Our ability to meet energy needs with that solution isn't really feasible? Even if all the world governments started cooperating tomorrow - which is impossible - it'd be multiple decades until we'd meet demand along with political feasibility. No one wants a Nuclear reactor in their backyard - personally I'd be okay with it. And this just meets today current demand which is only expected to grow because of things from more buildings to more tech gadgets. If I hadn't lent my copy of Inhabitable Earth I'd quote the passage on how drat far difficult it is replacing current energy demand with nuclear. Even if we cleared numerous bureaucratic hurdles we consume so much energy it's that drat difficult. CommieGIR posted:Wait, why does his CV include his married status and name of spouse? That's kinda creepy. Of all things I'd dispute in a discussion over any topic. It's one's martial status.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 23:57 |
|
What's bourgeois about rooftop solar? It's an obvious and logical place to put panels that otherwise wouldn't be used for anything else. Subsidies to make it more affordable have been available, although I think Trump ended them? We should restore and expand the subsidy program. Speaking as someone who has PG&E as a power provider and has 0% trust in them, I actually really like decentralization.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2019 23:59 |
|
Tab8715 posted:If I hadn't lent my copy of Inhabitable Earth I'd quote the passage on how drat far difficult it is replacing current energy demand with nuclear. Even if we cleared numerous bureaucratic hurdles we consume so much energy it's that drat difficult. The problem is: Its really the only hurdle that will lead to a solution. More natural gas will not, and can not. Not in the face of what we know about the companies running these wells, and not in the face of their hatred of environmentalism and regulation.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:00 |
|
What gets me is that... Isn't illegal to shut off heating and electricity against a residence during the winter? Or are people purposefully under heating their homes during the winter? MomJeans420 posted:LOL if you believe climate change is killing 100k people a year. And yes, the poor people being hit the hardest by climate change are really worried about it, just ask the people in Ecuador how happy they were when gas subsidies went away recently. I mean... indirectly I'm sure it is? If you are a sustenance farmer in Central America I am absolutely positive it's having some kind of impact but that sort of thing is drat near impossible to quantify.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:06 |
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem is: Its really the only hurdle that will lead to a solution. Until we find a way to get over that hurdle, a shorter hurdle to jump over or increase our ability to jump not much is going to change. So far, we've just become more efficient but have found any real solutions that work in the real world.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:09 |
|
Family Values posted:What's bourgeois about rooftop solar? It's an obvious and logical place to put panels that otherwise wouldn't be used for anything else. Subsidies to make it more affordable have been available, although I think Trump ended them? We should restore and expand the subsidy program. Speaking as someone who has PG&E as a power provider and has 0% trust in them, I actually really like decentralization. You don't see what's generally bourgeois about expecting individual citizens will own or co-own the building they're in to be able to order installation of solar panels on its roof? Also, decentralization doesn't fuckin help anything for preventing fires, especially since now you need better wiring to handle the possible changes in direction and magnitude of energy flows at all levels.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:18 |
|
Is it straightforward to ramp the electricity generation from nuclear power plants up and down quickly? I suspect that it probably isn't done very often, and that the people running nuclear power plants usually run them as much as possible. Running a nuclear power plant only part of the time would make nuclear electricity even more expensive, and it is already very expensive. But in a hypothetical future world where renewable electricity generation is a large fraction of the US' electricity generation capability, in the absence of an economical electricity storage technology or greatly overbuilding renewable electricity generation resources, a complementary electricity generation technology is needed to be able to fill in the gaps of the intermittent renewable sources. Is nuclear electricity a good technology for this purpose?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:30 |
|
In a word, yes. It just requires a political movement that can purge the Democratic Party of its right wing defenders of the status quo. Otherwise literally nothing is going to change.Tab8715 posted:May you define work? Ok so what's your reasonable sustainable solution to unfucking our reliance on coal/natural gas if building new forms of carbon neutral power generation is off the table? Thin the herd? Family Values posted:What's bourgeois about rooftop solar? It's an obvious and logical place to put panels that otherwise wouldn't be used for anything else. Subsidies to make it more affordable have been available, although I think Trump ended them? We should restore and expand the subsidy program. Speaking as someone who has PG&E as a power provider and has 0% trust in them, I actually really like decentralization. Because it costs several times more to build and maintain than just throwing them down in a field somewhere, and completely relies on the kind of increasingly rare people with ~20 grand to burn to actually do it. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Oct 29, 2019 |
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:35 |
|
silence_kit posted:Is it straightforward to ramp the electricity generation from nuclear power plants up and down quickly? I suspect that it probably isn't done very often, and that the people running nuclear power plants usually run them as much as possible. Running a nuclear power plant only part of the time would make nuclear electricity even more expensive, and it is already very expensive. No, but gas is great at this.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:37 |
|
Marxalot posted:Ok so what's your reasonable sustainable solution to unfucking our reliance on coal/natural gas if building new forms of carbon neutral power generation is off the table? Thin the herd? Government policy, industry regulation, technology, etc. all the way to individual lifestyle changes that reduce net carbon emissions but that are both politically and economically feasible. Building more nuclear power plants is one thing but trying to build thousands simply wishful thinking. Now what is yours?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:39 |
|
the natural gas defender has joined the thread
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:40 |
|
fishmech posted:You don't see what's generally bourgeois about expecting individual citizens will own or co-own the building they're in to be able to order installation of solar panels on its roof? I see how it is a bourgeois thing but at the same time if rich people are openly buying solar panels for their McMansion and sell excess renewable power to the grid that's really odd thing to criticize.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 13:42 |
|
MomJeans420 posted:LOL if you believe climate change is killing 100k people a year. Hmm, who to believe, the multitude of professionals who actually expend effort trying to quantify these things or a forums poster named MomJeans420? Such a dilemma
|
# ? Oct 29, 2019 00:47 |