|
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.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:08 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 03:24 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:10 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:12 |
|
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. I'm not proposing anything. I'm acknowledging reality and the likely path of future events.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:13 |
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:I'm not proposing anything. I'm acknowledging reality and the likely path of future events. Bullshit, because you said this: 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. 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", youre just another AGW denialist. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Dec 31, 2019 |
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:17 |
|
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.'
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:25 |
|
There's always a bigger fish.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:26 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Bullshit, because you said this: 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.
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:27 |
|
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?
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 18:29 |
|
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? What the gently caress are you talking about? Half of Europe has had lower emissions than us, and made more progress on lowering it than we have. 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. Its not. 2. Yes, and you are wrong. 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. 4. And your still an AGW Denier 5. You are bad at jokes, and you need to stop pretending you give a poo poo about Climate Change. NRC gave TVA the go ahead to 'consider' a Small Modular Reactor at Clinch River. By no means does this mean they will do it. https://www.power-eng.com/2019/12/31/nrc-says-tva-can-consider-smr-nuclear-energy-site-at-clinch-river CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 31, 2019 |
# ? Dec 31, 2019 19:03 |
|
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? Ah yes, the US...
|
# ? Dec 31, 2019 22:06 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 09:32 |
|
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
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 09:45 |
|
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 I'm seriously interested on your take on what went wrong with the Ohio fracking site.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 09:48 |
|
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. This. Or ban fossil fuel use for power generation first, buy their suddenly worthless companies for like a dollar and close them.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 12:09 |
|
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 People who distrust your whitewashed view of Natural Gas and the Petroleum Industry are not shitposts.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 13:03 |
|
It goes somewhat like this. quote:Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. Which means that, at the end of the day, gas is not the way forward. If your goal is to actually do something about climate change. If we had this conversation say, 35 years ago, the answer could have been different (due to gas giving us the potential to transition better, simply by adding time to the ticker). Now, it can't.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2020 17:37 |
|
Dante80 posted:Now, it can't. Why not? We either... 1. Shrink or Pause the economy to lower emissions. Which society is unwilling to do. 2. Burn more coal instead! Which option do you want?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 02:57 |
|
CommieGIR posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? This is literally exactly what we are promoting.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 02:58 |
|
Tab8715 posted:This is literally exactly what we are promoting. 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
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 03:11 |
|
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 So what do you propose as an alternative?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 03:19 |
|
Tab8715 posted:So what do you propose as an alternative?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 03:31 |
|
suck my woke dick posted:Massive public investment in nuke + renewables, anything short of that is just lipstick on a pig. 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?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 03:46 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Again, what do you propose?
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 04:41 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Why not? Because we have reached the point right now where two things are happening at the same time. 1. The cost and TRL of renewables is good enough to replace fossil fuels for energy generation, when coupled with a mild expansion of nuclear, hydro, tidal and geothermal for base load purposes. 2. Temporary solutions are simply not enough to alleviate the problem at hand. This is predominantly a political problem. You need massive investment to phase out fossil fuels anyway...which is the whole point btw. Choosing to back another fossil fuel while knowing the particulars is simply an exercise in futility. The reason I said that gas was a solution 30+ years ago is because point 1. was untenable and point 2. was relevant. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 2, 2020 |
# ? Jan 2, 2020 05:37 |
|
Tab8715 posted:So what do you propose as an alternative? 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
|
# ? Jan 2, 2020 06:48 |
In completely different news, batteries might be getting better soon. https://www.itnews.com.au/news/researchers-crack-cathode-challenge-for-high-capacity-li-s-batteries-536122 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. Would have to see more charging cycles to be a viable replacement, but its a good step in the right direction. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaay2757
|
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:04 |
|
quote:and keep smartphones running for five continuous days, the researchers said. My trusty Samsung E1190 is already running more than a week on one charge, tyvm.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:45 |
|
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. 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)
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:00 |
|
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. If you know they have an intermittency problem, then you know that you can't just substitute a wind turbine for a gas turbine on a per-power basis, and that therefore saying "It's cheaper to install a wind turbine than obtain fuel for a gas turbine" is a meaningless factoid.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:52 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 23:16 |
|
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. Except for France and others who invested heavily into nuclear and hydro.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 23:22 |
|
Definitely France. It's a bigger, more centralized country with less installed capacity so it hasn't been too much of a problem yet. But just like Germany, it has that weird political fetishisation of rural life that is at the root of the problem.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2020 23:36 |
|
https://twitter.com/lukeweston/status/1214896766425812992?s=20
|
# ? Jan 8, 2020 16:39 |
|
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 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.
|
# ? Jan 19, 2020 15:50 |
|
Tab8715 posted:In what way are you Interpreting anything that I’ve said as “using natural gas as the endpoint?”. We can't use it at all. Period. It's actually far better to just stay with what fossil we have and phase them out than build more. 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?
|
# ? Jan 19, 2020 15:58 |
|
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? I’d take it that we then do whatever is the least bad option until we’ve got a strong enough political movement that puts in politicians whom are willing to fight the fossil fuel industry and purposefully raise my electric bill. I’m entirely comfortable with that but so far not enough people care or care enough to make a difference. 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.
|
# ? Jan 19, 2020 16:05 |
|
Tab8715 posted:using Nuclear as a base load Please enlighten us as to what other role do you think nuclear generation stations provide on a contemporary grid if not base load? (You should really stop commenting so much on energy or climate policy if you don't even have a cursory understanding of the topic at hand.)
|
# ? Jan 19, 2020 23:56 |
|
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. If France has already done that (they have, 85% of their generating capacity is Nuclear) why a Chinese source? Its been done. Its proven. And if you had watched the videos I provided above, its benefiting their emissions immensely. I think the best part is: You FULLY support Natural Gas (which requires hundreds of drilling/fracking sites to function), but nuclear which needs minimal mining and reprocessing is somehow hard to believe?
|
# ? Jan 20, 2020 00:49 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 03:24 |
|
Tab8715 posted:In what way are you Interpreting anything that I’ve said as “using natural gas as the endpoint?”. The fact that you posted this: Tab8715 posted:So what do you propose as an alternative? In response to me saying "if we use natural gas as a stopgap, then we need a plan to quickly transition off of it". That kind of response suggests that you don't already have any alternatives in mind, which would mean just using natural gas forever. That's apparently not what you meant, but it's a straightforward interpretation of what you wrote
|
# ? Jan 20, 2020 01:29 |