|
VideoGameVet posted:Most of the plastic in the ocean is as a result of the fishing industry. Yup and that doesn't change a single thing about what I said
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yup and that doesn't change a single thing about what I said You are right. On a related topic, the beaches in Encinitas, a good distance south from Newport in the OC, now have a lot of tarballs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Most of the plastic in the ocean is as a result of the fishing industry. Ban fish, I don't even like sea food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Ban fish, I don't even like sea food. I was a Pescatarin (fish and veggies) for decades and dropped the fish about 12 years ago, went full veg, because the quality has gone to crap and it's unsustainable. When I visited the Tsukiji Market back in 1989 the tuna were huge, 700 pounds? ... don't know for sure. Well, they are being fished into oblivion. It's not sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Little bit of old news, but shows a cool graphic showing how much of Illinois power is nuclear https://twitter.com/nuclearkatie/status/1453742128035766282?s=20 So from Crooks and Liars, but the video itself is a good example of what a bunch of us talked about earlier: Oil Companies are using their "Green Initiatives" as cover for business as usual https://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2021/10/katie-porter-uses-handy-visual-aid?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=52277 Washington Post for better source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...b533_video.html The long and short: Shell and other companies keep promising renewables but then using incredibly little amounts of funds to actually do anything renewable, to give the appearance of taking Climate Change seriously. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Uh ohLeon Trotsky 2012 posted:SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case next term (that everybody assumed they would not take up) to weigh in on Congress’s constitutional authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
So I got to know James Lovelock and his whole Gaia hypothesis by playing SimEarth as a kid. I just thought I’d leave this here because I’ve gotten to know nuclear power better because of this thread and it’s cool to see this guy endorse nuclear power as a realistic and green source of energy. Thanks for arguing nerds!quote:… we should also not become over-reliant on renewable power, which will leave us with an energy gap. We need to build more nuclear power stations to overcome that, though the greens will first have to get over their overblown fears of radiation. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/02/beware-gaia-theory-climate-crisis-earth It’s also nice to see he used the same “ice cube in your glass” metaphor for global warming and the polar caps I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Uh oh I know they wouldn't have the balls, but could Congress (if non coal industry capitalists decided it was in their best interests to make them) pass a bill basically defunding and shuttering any justice department office until they comply with EPA rulings to effectively neuter this the second it becomes a liability? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I know they wouldn't have the balls, but could Congress (if non coal industry capitalists decided it was in their best interests to make them) pass a bill basically defunding and shuttering any justice department office until they comply with EPA rulings to effectively neuter this the second it becomes a liability? Yes, but Congress could also just make a law doing what the EPA doesn't have the authority to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes, but Congress could also just make a law doing what the EPA doesn't have the authority to do. Well the point would be to not require a bill be passed whenever the EPA needs to change something in their rules. I would be in favor of Congress always being in session though (actually wait why don't they just have assistants who can act in their stead to allow this??) Actually, could the house/senate decide to require all firings of cabinet officials require congressional approval? The positions were made by them anyways, so there'd be no reason they couldn't right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:(actually wait why don't they just have assistants who can act in their stead to allow this??) What do you mean? You're suggesting that Congress basically designate a bunch of pseudocongressmen who act just like Congress and have the authority to write bills and budgets and things to give the actual Congressmen a break from time to time? That would really, seriously, violate the poo poo out of the Constitution. Congress can't delegate legislative authority to other entities. quote:Actually, could the house/senate decide to require all firings of cabinet officials require congressional approval? The positions were made by them anyways, so there'd be no reason they couldn't right? Those cabinet officials head Executive agencies. No, Congress could not require their firings to require Congressional approval, that's a clear violation of separation of powers. For not-cabinet officials, there's no single answer, and the question is Constitutionally fraught. See Collins v. Yellin and Seila Law v. CFPB.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What do you mean? You're suggesting that Congress basically designate a bunch of pseudocongressmen who act just like Congress and have the authority to write bills and budgets and things to give the actual Congressmen a break from time to time? I thought you were doing a setup for an ALEC bit, owell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What do you mean? You're suggesting that Congress basically designate a bunch of pseudocongressmen who act just like Congress and have the authority to write bills and budgets and things to give the actual Congressmen a break from time to time? I guess I could see the first being still a strong enough idea that people wouldn't do it (though obviously in practice they do this already by letting people buy their votes), but aren't alot of positions existing due to a law passed by Congress rather than amendments? If so then their power is definited by how Congress made them, and presumably they can unmake them, since otherwise that would mean a separation of powers issue (unless it explicitly says somewhere in the constitution that they can only make them). I had a part here about the state department, but yeah I guess it would take 2/3s of Congress to do this, but why, beyond the fact the president could probably ignore them and just say they can't, couldn't they remove a cabinet member who's position is defined by Congress if they have a 2/3rds majority (by repealing the law defining the position if nothing else, since it seems like it would be super separation of powers violating to not let Congress repeal a law with a successful vote, when that was how it was signed into existence)? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What do you mean? You're suggesting that Congress basically designate a bunch of pseudocongressmen who act just like Congress and have the authority to write bills and budgets and things to give the actual Congressmen a break from time to time? I'm not sure how far removed this is in reality from them just having staff. I get why you wouldn't want staff members casting the actual votes on their behalf but they seem to already do a lot of the other things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm not sure how far removed this is in reality from them just having staff. I get why you wouldn't want staff members casting the actual votes on their behalf but they seem to already do a lot of the other things. It’s not really different at all. (And staff already recommend votes to their boss, there’s too much going on for any one person to do all the background work for every single issue.). Used to be common for staff to be the ones asking most of the questions at hearings, for that matter - that alone would make hearings a lot more useful and a lot less theatrical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Re: the EPA / SCOTUS issue, the problem is people treat the Supreme Court as something that should give them their preferred outcome when really it should be enforcing the law and providing a consistent legal framework. Hard facts make bad law and all that. If you're liberal you should be happy to see the Court limit the powers of the executive branch if Trump gets re-elected in 2024. If you're into guns then limiting the ATF's power is a positive. You can Google "Chevron deference" or "Chevron deference Gorsuch" for more about it but while it seems like an esoteric area of law it's actually quite important. The correct fix for the EPA limiting CO2 emissions is: Phanatic posted:Yes, but Congress could also just make a law doing what the EPA doesn't have the authority to do. SA-Anon posted:I'm going to play devil's advocate here... Neither of this is new nor surprising and it is not an issue limited to Nuclear power plants. Yea he was just asking for why big projects fail generically in addition to the issues with nuclear plant construction. The thing is, it's not like these problems aren't well known but if someone out there knew how to solve them they could be making a lot of money. I've been wondering if you would get more people into the skill tradesman industries if they didn't have to move from job to job, kind of like how no one is going into trucking. The only thing I can think of though is some kind of government project to build a lot of nuclear plants, but even then I don't know how close you could justify building them, doesn't seem like it would work out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:The correct fix for the EPA limiting CO2 emissions is: This is complicated in practice by the 41 Senators representing something like a quarter of the population that will obstinantly block anything that might actually help people that aren't corporate shareholders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm not sure how far removed this is in reality from them just having staff. I get why you wouldn't want staff members casting the actual votes on their behalf but they seem to already do a lot of the other things. Replace "staff" with "lobbyists". The entrenched lobbying firms will draft bills for consideration, put staff in with the Congressman's office to "assist" with a particular initiative, provide advice on how to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
Back in the realm of our actually-existing context: Georgia Power's Vogtle doubles original cost amid further delay quote:Although Fanning expressed optimism that the project would move forward smoothly and that the company “will not sacrifice safety or quality to meet schedule,” the cost of the project continues to rise. Georgia Power’s share of the two units rose another $264 million. The project's overall cost, originally priced at $14 billilon, now sits at more than $28 billion. The company is in a cost-sharing agreement with other owners and could trigger a threshold where Georgia Power would have to pick up all of the cost overruns; Fanning said there has been “some discussion” with other co-owners about cost sharing, but did not disclose any details. edit to be more optimistic: Why Local Solar For All Costs Less: A New Roadmap for the Lowest Cost Grid The above report was referenced by journalist Dave Roberts, and outlines a modeling approach indicating that on the whole distributed resources like rooftop solar have the potential to result in substantial cost savings. This approach tries to model the interface between the high-voltage transmission grid and the more local distribution grids, and arrives at a result that undermines the claims by many utilities that rooftop solar increases costs for customers. FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
I’ve been seeing videos touting the success of South Australia’s renewable/storage implementation and the lower electrical rates achieved. If it was a nation it would be 2nd to Denmark in renewable %. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInH3MqiaC8
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:Back in the realm of our actually-existing context: Its still worth it. Remember that Votgle is an ACTIVE plant already (Votgle 1 and 2) and Votgle 3 and 4 will be active for 50+ years. And again: There's nobody who has done a fully Renewable grid, Australia is still heavily dependent on Coal and Natural gas, and appealing to the "cheapness" of the solution is expecting Capitalism to save us from the problems capitalism created. Its just not happening on Renewables alone. And everyone is looking at Germany and Australia and steadily going back to discussing Renewables + Nuclear, especially after COP26. Being cheap or arguing that anything needs to be cheap is arguing for our own destruction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Being cheap or arguing that anything needs to be cheap is arguing for our own destruction. Well until congress nationalizes the grid and power companies and/or passes a $trillion+ nuclear funding bill we unfortunately need the private sector so cost does matter. As soon as congress does those things I will care a lot less about the economics of power generation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Well until congress nationalizes the grid and power companies and/or passes a $trillion+ nuclear funding bill we unfortunately need the private sector so cost does matter. As soon as congress does those things I will care a lot less about the economics of power generation. The BBB plan includes subsidies for nuclear building and refurbishment. The problem with that thinking, however, is: Gas and Coal are always going to be cheaper. Fossil Fuels have positioned themselves to always be the cheap option, and Renewables can somewhat compete on cost, but not availability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And again: There's nobody who has done a fully Renewable grid  would like a word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Wibla posted:
Norway takes advantage of their terrain to utilize Hydro, its a very special use case. TVA did the same thing in the Tennessee Valley, however Norway is also a massive Fossil fuel exporter. In this case we're talking about Solar and Wind specifically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The BBB plan includes subsidies for nuclear building and refurbishment. The problem with that thinking, however, is: Gas and Coal are always going to be cheaper. Fossil Fuels have positioned themselves to always be the cheap option, and Renewables can somewhat compete on cost, but not availability. Right now I'd agree but saying "Always going to be cheaper" is a pretty big blanket statement, especially given learning curves and economies of scale. It's like saying that horses were cheaper than cars in the early 20th century and are always going to be that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Right now I'd agree but saying "Always going to be cheaper" is a pretty big blanket statement, especially given learning curves and economies of scale. It's like saying that horses were cheaper than cars in the early 20th century and are always going to be that way. The problem being is Solar and Wind are not currently addressing the energy we lose from retiring baseload like Nuclear plants. Indian Point being a prime example of that. And storage really isn't going to scale enough to make them possible baseload replacements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem being is Solar and Wind are not currently addressing the energy we lose from retiring baseload like Nuclear plants. Indian Point being a prime example of that. And storage really isn't going to scale enough to make them possible baseload replacements. I guess we'll see if the growth rate continues, as I'm pretty much convinced that we are going to be seeing a major disruption in the eletricity sector in the next decade if growth rates continue. So far, using the EIA figures, solar increasing by around 40% every two years. Storage is going in a similar cost curves that it will be inapplicable. This is gonna be a complete wait and see I suppose. Maybe I should do a ten year toxx and ban myself majority if the electricity in the united states is not from renewable sources by 2030 isn't from renewables. I know we have a fundamental disagreement on whether the growth rates will continue, but neither of us have a crystal ball. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I guess we'll see if the growth rate continues, as I'm pretty much convinced that we are going to be seeing a major disruption in the eletricity sector in the next decade if growth rates continue. So far, using the EIA figures, solar increasing by around 40% every two years. Storage is going in a similar cost curves that it will be inapplicable. So, first off: Those numbers are misleading. Solar did increase 40% in nameplate, but not in actual generation.  And its worth noting: A 40% increase was actually not much at all. That's an older graph, but it catches the increase, and its barely a blip in actual generating capacity, because solar's and winds nameplate is not rated for continuous output. So we can add such and such MW of Solar, but you are not getting that except at peak output. Natural Gas is the one growing the fastest. That's not good. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48576 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
"But solar and wind is so cheap!" ... only if you don't take into account the capacity factor and the amount of (typically fossil fuel) reserve generation capacity you need to shore up production shortfalls when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Wibla posted:"But solar and wind is so cheap!" ... only if you don't take into account the capacity factor and the amount of (typically fossil fuel) reserve generation capacity you need to shore up production shortfalls when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining And its worth noting we're in a wind drought due to climate change. Its temporary, but Wind output has dropped massively as the gulf streams re-orient themselves. And we're entering winter where solar output will drop as well. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/low-wind-speeds-hurt-profits-at-two-of-europes-major-energy-firms.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, first off: Those numbers are misleading. Solar did increase 40% in nameplate, but not in actual generation. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01_a It's generation. It's 40% year to date. 75,855 to 115,654.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You're wrong. Right from the EIA I stand corrected. It however is not making up the difference in lost baseload.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I stand corrected. It however is not making up the difference in lost baseload. I agree. We'll see in 5 years though given the historical growth rates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I’ve been seeing videos touting the success of South Australia’s renewable/storage implementation and the lower electrical rates achieved. If it was a nation it would be 2nd to Denmark in renewable %. It's not without its challenges. The South Australian grid has issues maintaining grid inertia on negative demand days and has to maintain about 200MW of spinning metal - natural gas turbines - to ensure stability. This requires SA to be an exporter of power, and loss of the interconnector would have to result in load shedding. The SA grid is long and "thin", so stability can be difficult to maintain on the best of days. It's not a reason to avoid renewables, it's a challenge in how grid stability will be maintained when most of the generation is non-synchronous. Inverter tech and batteries can rapidly respond to fluctuations in voltage, reactive power, and frequency requirements however it's still early days in co-ordinating this across a whole geographical area. I'd like to see some of the existing turbines maintained as synchronous condensers but I don't know if this is practical or economical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I guess we'll see if the growth rate continues, as I'm pretty much convinced that we are going to be seeing a major disruption in the eletricity sector in the next decade if growth rates continue. So far, using the EIA figures, solar increasing by around 40% every two years. Storage is going in a similar cost curves that it will be inapplicable. No need to toxx yourself this is where we pointlessly argue policy without any ability to actually implement it, but I feel like you're hand waving away the storage issue. I'm sure I've posted numbers in the past but you should work out the storage needed for something like California, where we have pretty consistent sun. Keep in mind lithium is going up in price and I'm pretty sure other metals are too but I haven't checked recently. Increasing solar isn't even necessarily a benefit, California already has to pay people to take our excess power at peak solar generation (not frequently though), and solar on every home is most definitely not the answer. You may already be aware of this but at least in California power usage peaks exactly as solar drops off. You can find papers from academics where they claim it's possible to go fully renewable in the US without nuclear, but in the real world every person I've met who works in energy/power doesn't think it's possible without nuclear (or at least in a reasonable time frame). Insanely cheap solar would lead to other nice possibilities though, such as using the excess power to pull carbon from the air and use that to generate gasoline that would actually be carbon neutral. In other news, France said they're going to start building new nuclear plants, supposedly six of them. *edit* and of course Greenpeace is upset with France, can't wait until Greenpeace joins forces with the QAnon people MomJeans420 fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1458027265867067397?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:*edit* Greenpeace is already gone nutty with their preference to use natural gas as a "green energy bridge".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
Wibla posted:
Longyearbyen still runs coal and will be replaced by ether natural gas or wood pellets, neither of which are carbon neutral nor renewable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Is there a reason radioisotope reactors put into use are all such a low wattage? Is it that their applications historically didn't need a lot of power, or is it an inherent limitation of the technology? Other than the laughable power output, using a radioisotope-type reactor to drive a municipal steam system seems like a way to offset some urban energy usage while involving practically no moving parts or maintenance. Obviously an oversimplification, but drop a shielded block of strontium 90 in a tank of water and you've got hot water for like 30 years without any additional inputs. Isn't Sr-90 just waste from fission reactors anyway? Sounds like argument for a global carbon tax. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 04:24
|
|