|
Rime posted:Sorry, just got done with a 13 hour shift. My hours tracker says I clocked 98 hours last week. It was -30 most of last week. We take one break a day in that weather. At a whopping grandiose $25/hr. Really getting rich off a job which lets me see my family, friends, and partners for one week out of every seven. If I'm lucky, and turnaround isn't put off. 100% travel to the shittiest hick towns in North America, whoop de loving doo. We won't get into how I feel lifting 75mm bolts all day long, or the serious risk of losing a limb or dying due to the errors inherent after 80+ hours of physical labor in six days. A Life? Hobbies? Food which isn't poo poo? What are these things? Yeah, not sacrificing much at all here. All to build poo poo which I no longer have any faith in whatsoever.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
i like the gloom in my doom'n'gloom to be like the gloom of the forest floor, deep and dark but shot through with random rays of light as for the doom, i'm tossing up whether i prefer fire, flood or ancient permfrost plagues
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
fauna posted:i like the gloom in my doom'n'gloom to be like the gloom of the forest floor, deep and dark but shot through with random rays of light best type of gloom to be honest
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
fauna posted:i like the gloom in my doom'n'gloom to be like the gloom of the forest floor, deep and dark but shot through with random rays of light rootin' for the mind-controlling parasitic wasps
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:rootin' for the mind-controlling parasitic wasps
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:How is my "embrace" (??) of 4-5 C bullshit? If we stopped all emissions tomorrow, what would be the C change once all the carbon still in the atmosphere is released? Given we are certainly not doing that, and emissions are continuing to go up, I'm not sure where the bullshit is. How is it supported? Just show the napkin math for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:Thats your job. I get paid about the same to fix diesel engines in lovely weather. Millions of people have rough blue collar jobs like yours. Are you saying that you do it to help the environment, and otherwise you would be working an easy job elsewhere? Because if that's the case you would make a bigger impact with activism than with your contribution to this construction project. If its about helping the environment you're doing it in the least effecient way. I think he's doing it to help his soul more than "save the world" per se.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
For those asking about the scale of the problem. Here's a simulator that shows what can still be changed. 2 degrees would require a lot of investment soon but it's still possible. Not for much longer. However, there's still a big difference between 2.5 and emissions peak this century and 4 degrees with no end in sight. https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ And here's another version that focuses more on timelines and raw data. https://croadsworldclimate.climateinteractive.org/ If you're too lazy to click it says in order to move the needle sufficiently we need to start doing all the policies, and very soon, if we want to avoid going over 2 degrees. Tax fossil fuels to death, make huge investments in solar and nuclear, plant forests, cap methane emissions, electrify the vehicle fleet, all of it. In order to fix things energy needs to get a lot more expensive, a little more than double. However with a brand new renewables grid, energy prices actually fall below current rates by mid century. And if that sounds like too much, if we start in 20 years even that Herculean trial won't be enough. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
speaking of the scale https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/ quote:- Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest only one candidates version of the green new deal is of the appropriate scale. you may have your grievances with it, but its the only one that gets the scale right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
https://v.redd.it/pn5g3337t6341
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:speaking of the scale He gets the scale right but there’s no mention of nuclear at all. All the money in the world isn’t going to do it without nuke plants and good luck convincing the casual treehuggers that omg atomz are anything but evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Oracle posted:He gets the scale right but there’s no mention of nuclear at all. All the money in the world isn’t going to do it without nuke plants and good luck convincing the casual treehuggers that omg atomz are anything but evil. this is false on two levels #1 there is an entire paragraph devoted to nuclear. a simple ctrl-f for the word nuclear would have shown you five results. you're not gonna like it, but you'd be better of maybe engaging with it than lying about it. kinda puts you on a bad foot to start now that we know you're a low-effort bullshiter #2 we really genuinely do not need to grow nuke for baseload. that is a full blown myth at this point. if anyone wants to get into it though I'd reccomend starting a page back on the dedicated thread we already have for energy generation: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3505076&perpage=40&pagenumber=189 not here StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:For those asking about the scale of the problem. Here's a simulator that shows what can still be changed. 2 degrees would require a lot of investment soon but it's still possible. Not for much longer. However, there's still a big difference between 2.5 and emissions peak this century and 4 degrees with no end in sight. Business as usual is what I expect, and that's 4.2 I'm wondering how accurately this can take into account feedback effects though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
BAU models do not (because they couldn't know at the time) account for the dramatic cost curves in wind, solar, and batteries. Thats not a my-opinion thing that's just a function of the calendars and the price-points. Feel free to google it yourself. Even if we "BAU" as a civilization/society, coal and oil will at least 80% go away, simply by becoming non-economically-viable, in mid-century. Don't get me wrong ,thats not a solution, and that's not really reason to feel optimistic overall because of. If we still plow through the middle of the century at 5 - 10Gt/year of positive emissions that's still going to push us up into 3C. But I think the technology cost curves we have witnessed over the past ~5 years have more or less taken an AR5 era BAU projection off the table. We are not gonna be pushing 40GT in 2050. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Dec 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Hypercanes and firenados? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:BAU models do not (because they couldn't know at the time) account for the dramatic cost curves in wind, solar, and batteries. Why would it not be economically viable? Do you expect the availability of oil to go down? I figure fracking will just become more common, because everyone will still want "cheap" fuel for their cars, homes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Oil will be in full use for as long as long-range jet travel exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
We've hit the cross over points on things like power factors for fossil fuels vs renewables. It is all down hill from there, just very slowly, too slowly. Renewables are going to continue to get compartively cheaper, it is just going to happen too late. The rate of change is too slow. The ability to increase that rate of change, the second derivative, is also to slow I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:We've hit the cross over points on things like power factors for fossil fuels vs renewables. It is all down hill from there, just very slowly, too slowly. Renewables are going to continue to get compartively cheaper, it is just going to happen too late. The rate of change is too slow. The ability to increase that rate of change, the second derivative, is also to slow I think. its too slow to prevent 2 , but imho its already fast enough to prevent >3.5ish (just drawing diagonal lines on graphs here) StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:Don't get me wrong ,thats not a solution, and that's not really being to feel optimistic overall because of. If we still plow through the middle of the century at 5 - 10Gt/year of positive emissions that's still going to push us up into 3C. But I think the technology cost curves we have witnessed over the past ~5 years have more or less taken an AR5 era BAU projection off the table. We are not gonna be pushing 40GT in 2050. I'm super skeptical about this point. I don't disagree that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, I just think mid-century is wildly optimistic given current production. There's too much emitting generation that's either coming online right now or planned for the next decade, and natural gas is not going away anytime soon. The costs of renewables won't justify tearing down existing infrastructure without policies in place to make that happen, and that's a major problem when combined with the new generation that's going to be coming online in the next decade. Transportation is a major problem too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The costs of renewables won't justify tearing down existing infrastructure without policies in place to make that happen quote:Transportation is a major problem too. cars will hit the crossover point somewhere in the mid 2020s, and then sales of new cars being 90% ev will take a decade after that so mid 2030s, and then cars on the road last a decade or two, so by 2050ish you're looking at 90% everything from the f150 down to most impoverished third world grain hauler being electric. meanwhile, in parallel, for the grid we already crossed the 50% of new-capacity being renewable in 2018. power infrastructure financing plays out over longer bond timeframes, but the overall carbon intensity of the grid is clearly on track to be much less than a BAU number from <2016. planes on the other hand are a wicked hard one to solve and we should just tax the poo poo out of it so it stays <1Gt/year StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
What are the main issue with electric car production in terms of environmental costs - the batteries? They use lithium right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
To maintain out current level of vehicle use and just substitute electric for combustion engines, we'll basically have to strip mine the ocean floor and tie up essentially all battery production on the planet to meet demand. Switching to EVs without a massive reduction in overall personal vehicle use in our society is dumb. Elon Musk can gently caress off with his stupid overpriced powerwheels bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:What are the main issue with electric car production in terms of environmental costs - the batteries? They use lithium right? Mining the rare earth metals used in current battery technology is incredibly environmentally destructive, and also socially unjust because of tremendous exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:What are the main issue with electric car production in terms of environmental costs - the batteries? They use lithium right? this is such tedious woke-one-upsmanship bullshit, especially coming from you, who the last time we called out on your bullshit you just skipped a page and then ignored the follow up questions. pretty sure you're just a broke brained contrarian concern troll. the only question is if its on purpose because you're a bad guy, or if you're just to dumb to do more than flit from one factoid talking point to another. parroting catchphrases you don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
i have to say this exact same bullshit every 50 pages because the endless hoardes of idiot asholes repeating these lithium talking points never stop i wish they would, its a real problem, i wish any one of you would please look inside yourself at what makes you do this. its not true, its never been true, you heard it from a bad source and then you lend your voice to it by repeating it. why? what makes you want it to be true so bad? regurgitating "there isn't enough lithium" is functionally the same thing as regurgitating "scientists said we were gonna have to worry about global cooling!" its just totally made up bullshit contrarian noise. it is 100% a reflection of the mental illness of the person saying it, not at all based in reality. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
what in the world are you talking about I simply asked a question. I never stated that lithium was even an issue, I just asked if they all used it because I heard Tesla used it a lot for theirs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i have to say this exact same bullshit every 50 pages because the endless hoardes of idiot asholes repeating these lithium talking points never stop Seriously though the only things I’ve heard about lithium extraction are: 1. A poisoned river in Tibet near a village that happens to be located near a rich lithium deposit. 2. Miscellaneous rare earth metal mining injustices and atrocities out of Africa. 3. A need to strip mine Chile for some reason. 4. The ocean floor mining discussion based on that study of how it would work. How does lithium mining actually occur so that supply isn’t a problem and social justice isn’t sacrificed? Sorry if I’m making you repeat yourself!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
no, its an automatic failure to go down that path. disingenuous concern trolls and their dumbfuck parrots can "just ask questions" with bullshit premises faster than they could ever possibly be refuted. you cannot win by accepting the premise and engaging. you have to move the burden of proof onto wherever you heard the issue first, or YOURSELF. by "just asking questions" you seed false bullshit as a premise wherever you go. you are the poison in the well. either of you two are welcome to try to assert whatever case for lithium scarcity you think you can make. feel loving free, I double dog dare you. but this "i heard <bullshit>" trick is solid go-gently caress-yourself behavior. especially on top of the last thing we called AJ for his bullshit on (people should embrace 4 - 5C) he again tried to flip the burden of proof, and then just dropped it and now has a new question to just ask. the behavior pattern is clear. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
I mean I totally don’t know what I don’t know in this case. I’m not at all angling for some anarchoprim future or anything. You just sound like you understand the arguments for expanding lithium extraction intuitively. To try to be charitable, I just assume that lithium is mined like gold or copper or anything else, really. At scale I imagine that looks like tearing up large sections of earth, doing some chemical magic to them and disposing of the contaminated chemicals and waste rock in tailings ponds and “secured” heaps, then packaging up the refined lithium and shipping it around the world to manufacturing hubs. In the case of lots of rare earths, the best or only worthwhile deposits also happen to be in places where there aren’t sustainable mining standards (or any effort at them at all), labour laws, any effort to equitably distribute the mineral wealth, and/or strong enforcement of those standards. This has almost nothing to do with the actual amount of lithium to which we could apply this process. If that’s not the case with lithium, what am I missing? If it is, then it’s kind of a nonstarter because expanding production by many orders of magnitude becomes another bandaid on the ecological and environmental justice crisis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Cars kill tons of people; 35000/yr in the US alone. Tires are a major source of pollution. Road and parking infrastructure covers urban regions like a blight destroying biodiversity and magnifying the scale of flooding. Road-centric city planning sucks the life out of urban areas and turns them into hostile, atomized deserts where everything feels far away. None of these things get solved by electrifying them. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
IIRC, lithium's already doable. The bottleneck is cobalt. Strictly speaking, 'cobalt mines' don't really exist. Cobalt comes up alongside other minerals -- mainly nickel and copper ores. What exists are mines that happen to also have some cobalt production. So supply's not great. And we need more than is available if you want to electrify the global auto fleet and power infrastructure. The way forward is R&D for either:
Last I checked, both propositions are a, "uh 5 - 10 years?," kind of thing. But it's been a few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Hmmquote:To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, renewable energy production has to scale up fast. This means that global production of several rare earth minerals used in solar panels and wind turbines—especially neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium—must grow twelvefold by 2050. We just need literally an order of magnitude more raw material assuming no other uses for it in a time where we should be scaling infrastructure drastically back. Scaling that up will require us to invest in and burn more fossil fuels when we should be scaling that back too. Eh, I'm sure it'll be fine. It'll be fiiiiiiine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:no, its an automatic failure to go down that path. disingenuous concern trolls and their dumbfuck parrots can "just ask questions" with bullshit premises faster than they could ever possibly be refuted. you cannot win by accepting the premise and engaging. I can't even keep track of what this freakout is about at this point, dude. Are you mad that he doesn't think building 10 billion electric cars is a good idea? Are you mad that people aren't techno-fetishist dipshits like elon musk who think we can "science our way out of this"? I'm legit confused about your behaviour right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
The Bolivian putsch was US orchestrated for their lithium mines/deposits; Evo had recently nationalised the lithium industry. MAS played nice with IMF and world bank nor are they sitting on a ton of oil like the countries the US typically coups. Ah, progress.
Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I’m not at all angling for some anarchoprim future or anything. quote:You just sound like you understand the arguments for expanding lithium extraction intuitively. quote:To try to be charitable, I just assume that lithium is mined like gold or copper or anything else, really. quote:If it is, then it’s kind of a nonstarter because expanding production by many orders of magnitude becomes another bandaid on the ecological and environmental justice crisis. Notorious R.I.M. posted:Cars kill tons of people; 35000/yr in the US alone. Tires are a major source of pollution. Road and parking infrastructure covers urban regions like a blight destroying biodiversity and magnifying the scale of flooding. Road-centric city planning sucks the life out of urban areas and turns them into hostile, atomized deserts where everything feels far away. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:The Bolivian putsch was US orchestrated for their lithium mines/deposits; Evo had recently nationalised the lithium industry. MAS played nice with IMF and world bank nor are they sitting on a ton of oil like the countries the US typically coups. Ah, progress. the bolivian coup was not at all for lithium and i personally think its a really hosed up thing for people that just want to sound cool on the internet to spew made up bullshit like that. the bolivian coup was for oil and gas and taxes and land and racism like every other right wing reactionary coup, it has nothing to do with your little pet internet debate fetish. bolivia barely exports lithium. there's plenty elsewhere. even if it started to it would still barely matter compared to oil and gas. on top of that, just because lithium-ion batteries have lithium in the name doesn't mean that much, there's only about 5 - 10kg of lithium in an entire electric vehicle. but again, as usual, assholes like PMJ can make up and spread bullshit faster than people can debunk it. you cannot play defense against the sheer volume of liars and morons case by case. you either have to shift the burden of proof to them, or ignore/ban/ostracize/etc them. things will not get better until we stop treating this behavior as innocent. its not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Dude wtf are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Am I having a stroke or is he?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
yea this is always the follow up thing, because I can type more than a few sentences on a topic I must therefore be having a stroke or a freak out or a meltdown. some people are such anxiety ridden cowards that when they see almost any amount of conflict they panic. no, I am not having a stroke. are you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 23:55
|
|