|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This was a good video on pumped hydro posted today: when Trump proposed abolishing the CSB it made a small number of gigantic nerds incredibly angry including me
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Do you scream at your doctor about “Eternal Life Denialism” and rant about your plan to replace all your organs every 30 months. Got it. Drill, baby, drill because actually addressing issues and confronting the perpetrators is too hard for you. Also: Nice job comparing a scientifically agreed upon problem to made up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Got it. Drill, baby, drill because actually addressing issues and confronting the perpetrators is too hard for you. Both death and AGW are real problems without solutions. In the latter case because the political/legal/economic factors make it impossible. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Both death and AGW are real problems without solutions. In the latter case because the political/legal/economic factors make it impossible. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding this. Death is an inevibility. AGW is inability to confront greedy exploitation of our environment. These things are nothing a like and I'm sorry you are incapable of making accurate comparisons. You just compared pollution to the inevitability of death, what the hell is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Death is an inevibility. AGW is inability to confront greedy exploitation of our environment. This pointless moralizing and emoting is a big reason you can’t understand why no government can or will make the decisions necessary to fix things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:This pointless moralizing and emoting is a big reason you can’t understand why no government can or will make the decisions necessary to fix things. We have tackled large issues before, your nihilism is just pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:This pointless moralizing and emoting is a big reason you can’t understand why no government can or will make the decisions necessary to fix things. This is just stupid, especially given that there's plenty of governments that have already acknowledged global warming and are making strides to remediate the situation. Just because the US is not currently leading this effort does not mean it is not happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We have tackled large issues before, your nihilism is just pathetic. “We” have never tackled an issue of such long term, global, and speculative impact with such enormous, global, unequally distributed costs subject to so much incentive to defect. I’ll believe it’s possible when politicians start talking about dropping all health care and pension funding on top of huge tax increases to fund the infrastructure changes at home and pick out a biggish medium sized country to preemptively nuke to demonstrate the need for others to play ball. Brazil comes to mind, but maybe there’s someone smaller who would work. It’s an existential crisis, not a bullshit campaign by western leftists to advance their preferred domestic policies behind a smokescreen by duping gullible morons marching in the street and posting on Internet forums, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:“We” have never tackled an issue of such long term, global, and speculative impact with such enormous, global, unequally distributed costs subject to so much incentive to defect. So your solution is to just give up, accept we cannot change exploitative gas and petroleum companies, and just roll over. Why are you in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is just stupid, especially given that there's plenty of governments that have already acknowledged global warming and are making strides to remediate the situation. Just because the US is not currently leading this effort does not mean it is not happening. It’s not happening fast enough or seriously enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So your solution is to just give up, accept we cannot change exploitative gas and petroleum companies, and just roll over. I am employed in the energy industry and this thread has much of interest. Your Underpants Gnome solutions to AGW are not among them. Maybe try filling out step #2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:I am employed in the energy industry and this thread has much of interest. Your Underpants Gnome solutions to AGW are not among them. Maybe try filling out step #2. LMAO, this makes so much sense now. Your lovely comparisons to AGW to the inevitability of death. Your just making bad faith arguments. And now your post history makes even more sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
This thread sucks
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:This thread sucks I tried to make it better with some good video content for discussion, but apparently we need another global warming thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:It’s not happening fast enough or seriously enough. Ah yes, behold those goalposts as they sprint into the distance on petrol-fueled engines. Look man, there's another thread if you want to whine about the climate crisis and accuse people of being gullible idiots. This is usually a good thread, and it doesn't need someone Cramering in and rehashing 90s-era debates about whether global warming is caused by humans or magic. There's plenty of interest in different aspects of energy generation. Why don't you stick with that instead of making stupid and obnoxious posts about how green-anything is stupid? Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Plutonium is green according to the Simpsons
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
quote:The Keystone pipeline has spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into North Dakota this week, The New York Times reports. So in a surprise to no one, Keystone Pipeline has spilled again. At least another 350,000 gallons of crude are in Dakota wetlands. Of course last time TransCanada initially reported the spill was half the size it actually was, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Joey Steel posted:Mind linking to the report you are reading? I'd like to have some real world stuff bedtime reading. https://reneweconomy.com.au/batteries-vs-pumped-storage-hydropower-place-87554/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:This pointless moralizing and emoting is a big reason you can’t understand why no government can or will make the decisions necessary to fix things. So much progress is being made, though. Your position seems to preclude reality
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:So much progress is being made, though. Your position seems to preclude reality I spent a couple pages yelling "better things are possible, you poo poo" at someone else a while back so don't mistake me for saying otherwise, but I really hope you mean progress outside of the US lmao. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Technically the US has made more progress than most countries, albeit unintentionally
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Tab is really trying to spin a narrative that the problem is centered on high-end or boutique consumption. He was trying to zero-in on exotic and luxury cars in the climate change thread, even after it was pointed out that most exotic cars get equivalent/better gas mileage than the average pickup truck and that luxury cars don't get meaningfully worse mileage than any other car in the same size class. It was a question on automotive emissions, not a statement. And the growth of large SUVs in the automotive segment isn’t at all helpful. It should be no surprise that GM and Toyota were with Trump’s emission plan because they’ve got the worst overall fleet emissions. And honesty the whole problem of global warming is caused by the excessive consumption, wealth, riches, etc. of humanity at the expense of our own biosphere. My point of focusing on things like exotic cars wasn’t only due to their emissions (Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. are so lightweight it’s moot - I didn’t think of this earlier which is why I asked but other automotive sports likely add up to a few regional flights) but that “we” should focus who is able change behavior as opposed to the middle class merely going through the motions of society. Along with understanding where exactly emissions are coming from because the more we know the better. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Nov 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
But lets throw all that progress away for a natural gas drilling spree, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But lets throw all that progress away for a natural gas drilling spree, right? BHP is in the process of deciding which LNG powered iron ore freight ship is going to be purchased - using LNG versus HFO is estimated as a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (also reduction in Sulphur and other pollutants). Natural gas has its place. Sure, the industry contains greedy self serving people that are in it for themselves at the expense of others - but cutting off your nose to spite your face is not the basis of grown up policy. If LNG is the best answer to a problem, then you suck it up regarding having to deal with corrupt greedy people and work to minimize their impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It was a question on automotive emissions, not a statement. And the growth of large SUVs in the automotive segment isn’t at all helpful. It should be no surprise that GM and Toyota were with Trump’s emission plan because they’ve got the worst overall fleet emissions. Emissions reduction, fundamentally, has to be tackled at the supply side. The scale of reductions needed, over the short timescales (now) necessary, are not realizable by addressing the problem piece by piece on the consumption end in whatever order is convenient. Whether such an approach might "eventually" work is no longer relevant. Understanding "where emissions are coming from"--and what the policy implications of that are--is also best considered on the supply side. For example, >25% of total U.S. refining capacity is concentrated in just the top 10 largest refineries. This kind of power law distribution is common in all major fossil fuel producing states, and applies not just to refining but extraction, transport, storage, etc. Furthermore, the supply chain isn't just concentrated, but highly correlated, so that the marginal reduction in output associated with a single node is often much greater than it's simple share of capacity. Just, fundamentally, which sounds like a more efficient approach? Focus on hundreds of millions or billions of people in thousands of different ways to chip away at tiny fraction of consumption here and there; or focus on 10 refineries and, presto, domestic output reduced by 25%? If production is targeted at the source in an efficient way, how does that affect the incentives for continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure? What would it do the price of refined products and how would that affect consumption? How does it impact the comparative profitability of these energy sources vs. renewables (which get cheaper every year while fossil fuels do not and can not).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Emissions reduction, fundamentally, has to be tackled at the supply side. The scale of reductions needed, over the short timescales (now) necessary, are not realizable by addressing the problem piece by piece on the consumption end in whatever order is convenient. Whether such an approach might "eventually" work is no longer relevant. A combined approach has its merits. The fact that there are billions of consumers, like you said, means that even small changes in consumer habits can result in huge swings in CO2 production. For instance, average fuel economy today is 25 mpg. It was 12 mpg in 1970. Say that consumers didn't ever really get interested in better fuel economy, so it never substantially improved; that's a difference of 13 mpg. Americans alone drove 3.2 trillion miles last year, so that's an additional 41.6 trillion gallons of gasoline burned that year alone, equating to 830 trillion pounds of CO2 emitted, a 10% increase in total global emissions for that year. And that would be just from US drivers. And the fact of the matter is that we need to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere, across all sectors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:BHP is in the process of deciding which LNG powered iron ore freight ship is going to be purchased - using LNG versus HFO is estimated as a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (also reduction in Sulphur and other pollutants). Natural gas has its place. The same industry is on a deregulation lobbying spree, and we're in the middle of a methane spike which could accelerate global warming even more. No. It wouldve had a place 30 years ago. Now its the wrong time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Lol Then what do you suggest the shipping industry do, exactly? They have exactly two options as things stand - fossil fuels and nuclear. There is nothing else, and I mean nothing, that can provide the kind of power required for moving that kind of cargo on the scale needed. Either you cut global trade on the order of, well, I would be guessing but let's say 90%+, and go back to wind, you begin churning out nuclear-powered vessels, or you spend untold amounts of money developing ~~~eco friendly~~~ carbon fiber battery powered ships that have just enough energy storage to get the ship out of harbour and gently caress all else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Emissions reduction, fundamentally, has to be tackled at the supply side. Another poster essentially already commented on related items but I’m a secret climate denier because I asked specific question about automotive emissions or only focusing on rich people is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:using LNG versus HFO is estimated as a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (also reduction in Sulphur and other pollutants). Natural gas has its place. Do you have a link to the analysis that came up with that number? I'm extremely curious if they include leakage from natural gas distribution to supply those ships. I'm guessing they do not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Lol I think the best solution for things like this so to either tax and then fund carbon capture with the revenue, or force them to purchase carbon capture credits to offset the emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think the best solution for things like this so to either tax and then fund carbon capture with the revenue, or force them to purchase carbon capture credits to offset the emissions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:(not being glib, actually a genuine question...) Isn't carbon capture really just "planting a shitload of trees" with current technology? We can cap and trade carbon credits to help control how much carbon gets emitted, but there isn't really much carbon-negative technology out there, much less technology that works better than photosynthesis. And Cap and Trade was a scam. Companies would just buy up tons and basically used it as a license to be loose with emissions regs. Comrade Blyatlov posted:Lol Encouraging a fracking/drilling boom will likely push emissions HIGHER than what even the lovely bunker diesel they use now. Excess methane leaks from a deregulated Gas industry is not doing us any favors given what we know about methane leaks right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:(not being glib, actually a genuine question...) Isn't carbon capture really just "planting a shitload of trees" with current technology? We can cap and trade carbon credits to help control how much carbon gets emitted, but there isn't really much carbon-negative technology out there, much less technology that works better than photosynthesis. It’s planting trillions of trees, to trillions of bio-engineered trees and even physical equipment that pulls CO2 out of the ocean or air. All of these things however are completely experimental, extremely complex, expensive, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have a link to the analysis that came up with that number? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/reuters-america-bhp-weighing-lng-power-for-iron-ore-ships.html Your guess is probably correct. But for BHP, the LNG for fueling their iron ore fleet will almost certainly come from the one of the massive LNG facilities in the North West of Aus and I honestly don't think there would be too much in the way of fugitive emissions from that source. You will probably find BHP want to have fugitive emissions included as it helps BHPs competitive edge to have it included.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Lol Well, if you're slowing down to 15knts, you might as well go with wind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Hahahaha You seem to believe there's going to be a way where everyone gets what they want. There is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
No I'm just laughing at possibly the most impractical suggestion in a thread of them I also laid out the three options as I see em so no, I don't think theres some magic solution
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:No I'm just laughing at possibly the most impractical suggestion in a thread of them Every ship gets a sail the size of Texas Morbus posted:Emissions reduction, fundamentally, has to be tackled at the supply side. The scale of reductions needed, over the short timescales (now) necessary, are not realizable by addressing the problem piece by piece on the consumption end in whatever order is convenient. Whether such an approach might "eventually" work is no longer relevant. Grats op you just discovered supply side economics and how to use it to literally starve out the plebes in a more direct manner than by levying fuel taxes. Targeting refineries directly without having literally any other plan is absolutely a more efficient way of achieving that goal, yes. e: Infinite Karma posted:(not being glib, actually a genuine question...) Isn't carbon capture really just "planting a shitload of trees" with current technology? We can cap and trade carbon credits to help control how much carbon gets emitted, but there isn't really much carbon-negative technology out there, much less technology that works better than photosynthesis. That really only works if you bury the dang things. There are some smaller carbon sequestration plants out there with a potential to scale way the hell up, but they're more of a proof of concept than an Actual Thing People Are Doing. The problem is that right now they'd have to be ~commercially viable~ to run, and good luck have fun making synthetic fuels or carbon bricks pulled out of the atmosphere commercially viable against just pulling crude out of the ground. It's doable, but it would require huge investment. Probably less than what we dump into our military but lmfao bombing browns and making planes that fly apart when they cross the international date line is more important. e2: you could say the same thing about decarbonizing our powergrid tbh 
Marxalot fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Nov 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 23:58
|
|