|
You think? https://www.daybook.com/jobs/jDuPoWB4gbFMpS8x5 quote:Cyber Security Manager
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Guess what else grew? Fossil fuel usage. The growth rate of renewables is practically inline with increased electricity usage, nullifying most of the growth. It loving crypto miners isn’t it?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
"Please stop letting our network be flat"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Guess what else grew? Fossil fuel usage. The growth rate of renewables is practically inline with increased electricity usage, nullifying most of the growth. the IEA report that is pulling from says this quote:Renewables were the only energy source for which demand increased in 2020 despite the pandemic, while consumption of all other fuels declined And global electricity consumption actually fell in 2020. Capacity of installed renewables went up. I know they IEA isn't like 100% good, but are there other sources that show fossil fuel use up in 2020? E: I mean, renewables are still tiny compared to oil. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 17:57 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
at least coal is making a comeback, reject modernity and return to tradition
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:the IEA report that is pulling from says this https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix The reality is renewables are not in any state to replace fossil fuels to the degree we need to. To caveat that: Renewables have an important role to play in doing so, but we need something like Nuclear to REALLY end fossils stranglehold on energy, and Germany is struggling to make renewables only work, including having to deal with outright corruption over Nord Stream 2 as its becoming steadily apparent that Russia used fearmongering after Fukushima to help push Germany to gas dependency by accelerating closure of Germanys nuclear plants. And then you have the EU including Gas as a "green energy" which is going to entrench fossil fuels when we need to be getting rid of them faster.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Oh yeah, the IEA was basically just talking 2020, and likely we will see rebounds on all fossil fuels going forward as economies reopen.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:the IEA report that is pulling from says this I’ve heard predictions that the US eventually will be something like 1/3 natural gas, 1/3 wind, 1/3 solar for electricity generation.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Electricity generation is basically the low-hanging fruit. Getting rid of carbon emissions from transportation and heavy industry is going to be considerably more difficult.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:Electricity generation is basically the low-hanging fruit. Getting rid of carbon emissions from transportation and heavy industry is going to be considerably more difficult. To do so will require electrifying transit, which will mean more energy we have to generate at electrical plants.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:To do so will require electrifying transit, which will mean more energy we have to generate at electrical plants. sounds like we should buy natural gas
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 00:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:sounds like we should buy natural gas How bout no.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How bout no. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/553927-white-house-environmental-justice-advisors-expresses-opposition-to quote:White House environmental justice advisers express opposition to nuclear, carbon capture projects Solar panels made with forced labor, on the other hand, are A-Okay!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
An environmental justice group promoting rooftop solar in poor communities so they can benefit from them seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how energy grids work.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:And global electricity consumption actually fell in 2020. Capacity of installed renewables went up. 2020 may be an outlier for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:2020 may be an outlier for obvious reasons. I agree, but the post I was responding to was saying that the report on renewable growth, which did jump in 2020, was offset by increases in overall consumption. That has been true in other years, but not in 2020. I was just trying to see if this person was saying the IEA was being disingenuous in their report.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/553927-white-house-environmental-justice-advisors-expresses-opposition-to Look, unless we are talking about molten salt Thorium reactors—which isn’t happening anytime soon because of the US’s regulatory schema—I am fine with no more nuclear power generating stations being built in the US. Fukushima cured me of that after 20 years of being told about how safe western light water reactors are, how they could never melt down, and even if they did the corium could never escape the pressure vessel of a Western reactor... etc, etc. And even with the Thorium reactors, I still get kinda pissed when nuclear energy is praised like the second coming of Jesus, when we in the US haven’t figured out long term waste disposal yet. If you are pro-nuclear energy you can’t just be all gung-ho, “let’s build 100s of these things!” Then be like, “the waste that will be dangerous thousands of years longer than there has been civilization so far? Somebody else can figure that poo poo out in the amorphous future.” Yeah coal waste is way worse, I get it (not that I am advocating coal power); however coal waste cleanup doesn’t require a team of anthropologists thinking about how we design a system that can communicate to people 20,000 years in the future to not dig here.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Look, unless we are talking about molten salt Thorium reactors—which isn’t happening anytime soon because of the US’s regulatory schema—I am fine with no more nuclear power generating stations being built in the US. Fukushima killed how many again? This is straight up a severe misunderstanding of both the incident and its impact both environmentally and health wise. And again, since this has been stated repeatedly: TEPCO was TOLD that their generators and switchrooms were in poor locations by GE's Engineers. They ignored them. Diaichi 2, just up the coast, weathered the same incident without mishap. If Fukushima is the line for you for Nuclear, then no nuclear will be safe enough for you. Period. And that's a major problem, since Nuclear is, right now, the only on-demand generating solution that can feasibly, combined with renewables, end our fossil fuel glut. There is no other way, so this is tantamount to admitting failure and that we'll never reasonable address Climate Change. This is also basically admitting that even with the LOWEST death/kilowatt hour of ANY generation method, you are unwilling to acknowledge basic statistics over fearmongering. I mean, for fucks sake Chernobyl is the worst Nuclear accident in history and its only 68th on the overall for energy accidents worldwide Molten Salt Thorium isn't happening, not anytime soon. So you better have a better excuse than Chernobyl and Fukushima, which recent studies have shown are not nearly as impactful as they are being made out to be versus the sheer destructiveness of Coal and continued use and growth of the Natural Gas fracking industry.  Every nuclear plant closed gets replaced by Natural Gas. That means more fracking, more methane emissions, more carbon emissions. So that's a pretty poor take considering how long most PWRs have run in the United States and elsewhere without issue or accident. https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1391951106000007169?s=20 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:24 on May 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Yeah coal waste is way worse, I get it (not that I am advocating coal power); however coal waste cleanup doesn’t require a team of anthropologists thinking about how we design a system that can communicate to people 20,000 years in the future to not dig here. Coal waste cleanup is literally impossible. What do you think coal waste is, exactly?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
its not atomz, its chemicalz, therefore its safer. or at least more stable.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:its not atomz, its chemicalz, therefore its safer. Coal has atomz in it AND chemicalz and heavy metals. So, yeah, not great. Also pretty much burning our planet to death with carbon, so also, not great.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Look, unless we are talking about molten salt Thorium reactors—which isn’t happening anytime soon because of the US’s regulatory schema—I am fine with no more nuclear power generating stations being built in the US. We have solved the storage and reprocessing problems, it is just stopped by politics. We stopped building reactors that can take advantage of such things as well so we lost our manpower and expertise. If we want to build thorium reactors (not likely) we will need to start building current functional designs now. The we will have the expertise and supply chains to build newer generation plants.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
Nuclear waste is a NIMBY problem, not a physical problem. I personally don't worry about CO2 emissions as we're not going to stop the levels from rising so it is what it is, but for people who think getting the US to zero emission power generation as quick as possible is important then it's important to realize that's not going to happen without nuclear power. Maybe efficient gas plants with carbon capture and sequestration but at least nuclear is proven and in use now (and oil and gas are going to get more expensive in not too long). On a related note, for whatever reason the solar fans on Twitter are simultaneously the most rabid while being the least informed. The difference between MW and MWh seems to be entirely lost on them despite being very important when planning your energy grid. I don't know why the energy storage problem is so hard to grasp for some people but it's truly a thing a lot of them just don't get. I like solar and insanely cheap solar power would lead to a lot of cool possibilities, but it does have a fair number of limitations. Also, please keep these people away from any energy policy decisions: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/03/23/california-scrambles-to-improve-electric-grid-for-summer-heat/ quote:But green-power activists oppose the proposal, saying there should be more emphasis on reducing demand and less on increasing supplies from existing sources. So the poor should suffer the heat without AC as we focus on residential solar, which isn't even helpful for peak power usage times. And that's not even getting into the fact that increased residential solar has to lead to the end of net metering at some adoption rate, as they're currently getting over 3x the benefit they actually provide to the grid. Although it makes more sense if you consider the Sierra Club is more concerned with stopping things that allow society to support more people than they are with the environment.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Nuclear waste is a NIMBY problem, not a physical problem. I personally don't worry about CO2 emissions as we're not going to stop the levels from rising so it is what it is, but for people who think getting the US to zero emission power generation as quick as possible is important then it's important to realize that's not going to happen without nuclear power. Maybe efficient gas plants with carbon capture and sequestration but at least nuclear is proven and in use now (and oil and gas are going to get more expensive in not too long). Yeah I had a discussion with someone on the Energy Twitter where they basically admitted that renewables only assumes some major energy cost cutting that fucks over the poor and impoverished. It always dances around population control and it's sketchy as gently caress, and also misses the mark on the increase in need for electrical generation to move towards electrifying transit more.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:for people who think getting the US to zero emission power generation as quick as possible is important then it's important to realize that's not going to happen without nuclear power. Then all evidence suggests it’s just not going to happen as quick as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Then all evidence suggests it’s just not going to happen as quick as possible. Probably not, but it's important to highlight it is a critical part of it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
1) Fukushima killed like 1 person as a result of atomz, compared to 20k from the non atomz problems (If you use the most wildly pessimistic anti nuclear numbers it's still less than 10% of the death toll even accounting for cancers years and years into the future, which is less than the annual deaths from coal nobody gives a poo poo about). Fukushima serves as an example for how nuclear disasters are actually way less bad than their public perception. Yes, we should learn from mistakes because "oops we let a drain run right into the basement and parked all the backup generators in the same basement" is loving stupid even if literally only one person dies because of it. No, it's not a valid reason to stop building nuclear. 2) We have a perfectly viable nuclear waste repository entering operation and another starting construction in Finland and Sweden. Even if the barrels they load into Onkalo somehow turned out to leak like sieves I'd be totally unconcerned even on geological time scales because if you bury the waste in the middle of thousands of square miles of granite slab that has been stable since before the dinosaurs died out it really doesn't matter. Anyone who cites nuclear waste as a reason to avoid nuclear energy is either uninformed or pretending that NIMBY politics is somehow a valid reason to be against nuclear forever. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 12:50 on May 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 12:46
|
|
.
|
There's also just the dumb solution. Keep peddling waste from temporary to temporary spots for hundreds of years. A headache? Sure. A problem on the scale of fossil-fueled climate change? Pfffff. EDIT: There's already so much toxic waste of early industrialization stewed away everywhere in nature that it's legitimately difficult for me to get worked up about one of the most heavily regulated and scrutinized forms of waste on the planet. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 15:13 on May 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:There's also just the dumb solution. Keep peddling waste from temporary to temporary spots for hundreds of years. A headache? Sure. A problem on the scale of fossil-fueled climate change? Pfffff. Most High Level waste can be re-used in future reactors that are already being tested today, so its best for it to be temporary storage anyways since we can then recycle it down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Fukushima killed how many again? This is straight up a severe misunderstanding of both the incident and its impact both environmentally and health wise. I question the veracity of the Chernobyl death stats. 57? This was the USSR after all. Skeptical.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:1) Fukushima killed like 1 person as a result of atomz, 0. VideoGameVet posted:I question the veracity of the Chernobyl death stats. 57? This was the USSR after all. Skeptical. The number for immediate deaths as a result of radiation is around 60. The range of eventual deaths is around 4000. Air pollution kills millions of people every year. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I question the veracity of the Chernobyl death stats. 57? This was the USSR after all. Skeptical. Skepticism is understandable, but 57 is the confirmed number dead from Radiation Poisonings or as direct result of the accident. As of 2020, there are only 15 confirmed deaths from Thyroid cancer that can be linked back to Chernobyl, due to the cancers ease of treatment. 4,000 was the ESTIMATE in the late 80s/early 90s and the estimate came from some sketchy sources like Greenpeace and others who also claimed there'd be hundreds of thousands of people sick, which didn't happen either. This number is unlikely to grow too much either as thyroid cancer primarily occurs in youth, so we've probably seen the tip of the spike from thyroid cancer. This is not solely Soviet/Ukrainian information, the number is well researched by both UN (UNSCEAR) and International Radiation Safety and Health Groups https://twitter.com/ThatRadGuy5/status/1387378597967581184?s=20 Its worth noting as well, things shown in the HBO Miniseries like the Bridge of Death, masses of civilians injured by radiation likely didn't happen and there's no supporting sources, it was entirely about adding drama. Even the worst nuclear accident pales in comparison to some of the worst mining and industrial accidents ever, so yeah I'm extremely skeptical when someone says nuclear is unsafe, because that really isn't held up by the data. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:53 on May 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
All of the high level fuel waste from all of the nuclear generation since the inception of the concept fits neatly in the parking lot of the facilities that generated it, full-stop. That’s opposed to the gigatons of CO and CO2 and NO2 and other horrible poo poo we’ve pumped into the atmosphere for well over a hundred years. Which would you rather deal with, after getting over your fear of the unknown. (Not unknowable, just unknown.) Nuclear is an education issue, not a disposal issue.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Fukushima was first and foremost a natural disaster in the short term, and after that a long-term PR disaster that will cause countless millions to suffer and die from dumbass anti-nuclear policies directly negativity affecting the environment.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Look, unless we are talking about molten salt Thorium reactors—which isn’t happening anytime soon because of the US’s regulatory schema—I am fine with no more nuclear power generating stations being built in the US. You're right, a handful of people from a post-apocalyptic industrial society thousands of years from now may die after breaching a nuclear waste storage facility, it's better to let millions die from climate change in the coming decades
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Nuclear is an education issue, not a disposal issue. Call it whatever you want, there’s been no meaningful progress in the last 30 years in the US so you might want to consider plan B.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Call it whatever you want, there’s been no meaningful progress in the last 30 years in the US so you might want to consider plan B. Again, the amount of waste from even enriched PWR is minimal compared to the amount of Methane and CO2 they offset. Well worth it, especially as more modern reactors come online that can burn that same high level waste as fuel. And again, you are literally rejecting the SAFEST power option because of outright lack of understanding, and that's extremely concerning given the Climate Emergency we are in.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Yeah but guys, it's radiation and that means it's evil so let just keep burning stuff for fuel instead.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And again, you are literally rejecting the SAFEST power option because of outright lack of understanding, and that's extremely concerning given the Climate Emergency we are in. I’m not rejecting it, just pointing out that the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Whether the issue is real or not is irrelevant if you can’t change it, and I’ve seen no evidence of change in favor of nuclear in the past 25 years in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
ulmont posted:I’m not rejecting it, just pointing out that the insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Whether the issue is real or not is irrelevant if you can’t change it, and I’ve seen no evidence of change in favor of nuclear in the past 25 years in the US. Yeah ok but we already knew that shareholder value and bribes > saving the planet, so
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 23:42
|
|