CommieGIR posted:

Its also worth noting China and India recognize the issue, China with 47 nuclear plants under production and a strong shift into gas, transitioning to renewable. India as well has shown an interest in expanding their nuclear fleet.

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

I'm glad to see you now agree that using a lot of natural gas is a responsible way to manage climate change. I'm also glad that recognizing and showing interest in an issue are the same as doing something. I guess everything is ok now.

CommieGIR posted:

No, its not. China also recognizes Natural Gas is a problem, and is only temporary till they shift onto other sources like nuclear and renewable.

Whereas you and Tab are proposing it as a final solution. Big difference.

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

I'm not proposing anything. I'm acknowledging reality and the likely path of future events.

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

I'm glad to see you now agree that using a lot of natural gas is a responsible way to manage climate change.

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

None of this matters because of China and India anyway.

Greta Thunberg posted:

In Sweden, when we demand politicians to do something, they say, 'It doesn't matter what we do — because just look at the U.S.'

CommieGIR posted:

Bullshit, because you said this:


Get the gently caress out of here with this, between this and your handwave "China and India are the problem, and we can't do anything about them so its moot", your just another AGW denialist.

Kunabomber posted:

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

The US, that has reduced its emissions more than any of the Europeans? Was this Swedish politician speaking on the day Greta was born or something?

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

I know goons are largely mentally ill dim-to-midwits screaming into the electronic void as part of their self medication, but I do expect a higher degree of argumentation and reading comprehension than this. I'll try to make it simpler for you, although I don't know that I can make it simple enough.

1. You said (so, so many times) that natural gas is not a response to climate change.

2. I said, not directly related to your usual party line, that none of this matters because of India and China.

3. You used China's "strong switch to gas" as an argument that China is doing something effective about climate change.

4. I pointed out that this was a hilarious argument coming from you.

5. You didn't get the joke.

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

The US, that has reduced its emissions more than any of the Europeans? Was this Swedish politician speaking on the day Greta was born or something?

Apparatchik Magnet posted:

Nationalization of the oil and gas industry in the US means purchasing it at taxpayer expense at current market value. It doesn’t take wealth away from shareholders.

You wan expropriation, which isn’t possible without getting rid of a constitutional amendment.

MomJeans420 posted:

Goddamn it I'm on vacation and I usually only reply this thread when I'm bored at work, but out of nowhere like 60 shitposts flood in except for a couple of sane voices

Tab8715 posted:

Okay - then get the constitutional amendment. The investors, shareholders, executive of O&G as far as I am concerned are essentially genocidal maniacs who literally reversed-mortgaged future generations so they live with wealth. They don't deserve any of it.

gently caress them.

Edit - There are a few others replies but I really wanted to respond to this before the discussion moves on. I will reply to others tomorrow.

MomJeans420 posted:

Goddamn it I'm on vacation and I usually only reply this thread when I'm bored at work, but out of nowhere like 60 shitposts flood in except for a couple of sane voices

quote:

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil.

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant . Considering only tailpipe emissions, natural gas also emits 15 to 20 percent less heat-trapping gases than gasoline when burned in today’s typical vehicle.

Emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes, however, do not tell the full story.

The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions .

Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments.

Dante80 posted:

Now, it can't.

CommieGIR posted:

What the gently caress are you talking about?

3. China is using gas to switch to Nuclear and Renewables, its not a solution to Climate Change, and you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that its a temporary solution at that to help solve their smog issues until their 47 nuclear plants come online.

Tab8715 posted:

This is literally exactly what we are promoting.

QuarkJets posted:

It would be a temporary solution for us too if we had any plans to actually transition off of it. Plans in the US to replace coal with natural gas are untenable because they're advertised as and are intended to be The Solution To Climate Change, which is bullshit

Tab8715 posted:

So what do you propose as an alternative?

suck my woke dick posted:

Massive public investment in nuke + renewables, anything short of that is just lipstick on a pig.

Tab8715 posted:

Again, what do you propose?

Tab8715 posted:

Why not?

Tab8715 posted:

So what do you propose as an alternative?

quote:

An international team of researchers led by Dr Mahdokht Shaibani at the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Monash University have solved a major constraint holding back the commercial manufacturing of lithium-sulphur batteries.

Lithium-sulphur batteries hold the promise of four times the efficiency of current energy storage based on lithium-ion technology, the researchers said.

...
Lithium-sulphur battery prototypes built with the researchers' electrodes maintain 99 percent efficiency for over 200 charging cycles.
...

If commercially viable, the manufacturing process could produce batteries that enable electric vehicles to drive over 1000 kilometres between charges, and keep smartphones running for five continuous days, the researchers said.
...

quote:

and keep smartphones running for five continuous days, the researchers said.

Tab8715 posted:

In future, that may work but right today society demands so much energy that we have to generate power from fossil fuels. And refuses to reduce growth or pause the economy.

Again, what do you propose?

Family Values posted:

I linked to an article earlier in the thread, you can search for my posts if you want it, but the cost of installing wind is actually cheaper now than the cost of obtaining fuel for an existing gas turbine. Never mind the cost of building the gas turbine in the first place. This is not a future solution it's the solution right now.

(Yes I know renewables have an intermittency problem, hopefully that can be mitigated with smarter grids and expanded nuclear capacity – preferably the bare minimum to meet our needs while getting most of our energy from renewables)

Family Values posted:

I linked to an article earlier in the thread, you can search for my posts if you want it, but the cost of installing wind is actually cheaper now than the cost of obtaining fuel for an existing gas turbine. Never mind the cost of building the gas turbine in the first place. This is not a future solution it's the solution right now.

(Yes I know renewables have an intermittency problem, hopefully that can be mitigated with smarter grids and expanded nuclear capacity – preferably the bare minimum to meet our needs while getting most of our energy from renewables)

GABA ghoul posted:

Wind power has a NIMBYsm problem. Germany's wind power expansion has come to an almost complete stop and companies have started going out of business. No amount of money can get you a wind turbine build.

I suspect a lot of other countries in Europe are going to start having the same problems soon too. Maybe Japan too.

QuarkJets posted:

Did you even read my post? You seem to be accidentally admitting that all along you were in favor of just using natural gas as the endpoint, rather than as a stopgap. It contradicts your previous post

Tab8715 posted:

In what way are you Interpreting anything that I’ve said as “using natural gas as the endpoint?”.

Because I do not believe that. At all.

CommieGIR posted:

But even then, you've openly stated that you don't believe nuclear as a baseload can work, so what are we supposed to take away from your claims?

Tab8715 posted:

using Nuclear as a base load

Tab8715 posted:

Edit - If someone has any papers or news that China is using Nuclear as a base load I’d really like to see that. That would be a extremely strong argument.

Tab8715 posted:

In what way are you Interpreting anything that I’ve said as “using natural gas as the endpoint?”.

Because I do not believe that. At all.

Tab8715 posted:

So what do you propose as an alternative?