|
There is not any completely replacing fossil fuels on ships at the present time. The class societies hold that opinion, too.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There is not any completely replacing fossil fuels on ships at the present time. The class societies hold that opinion, too. replace all shipping with suborbital mass drivers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
Expensive shipping might encourage industry to invest in automation and high tech manufacturing on shore rather than just having hungry Chinese kids build everything by hand, which I think would be great, but that is a discussion for another thread. I always thought sailing ships were cool with their theoretically infinite range (ignoring crew supplies), let's bring it back!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
just mandate all fuel be made with green energy, water, and CO2. it'd be 20x more expensive than bunker fuel, but who cares?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No it does that. Found something that was based on the bloomburg article and quotes it (edit, nearly not everything on a second reading) entirely. Well, that is a quote from a while ago. I was going to stay out of this iteration of thread resurrection. My quick thoughts: there are hard limits on increases in capacity factor for wind/solar based on climate/insolation. The real problem with both isn't day to day variance, but season to season. Handling seasonal generation variance with energy storage is so far beyond our current technology that it can be written off altogether. Storage has seen minimal advances from what we had a century ago (pumped hydro) despite various articles making miraculous claims by showing batteries improving from entirely implausible to completely infeasible. In the case of solar in particular seasonal insolation differences are stark. Even in sunny California you can get a 2x -2.5x difference between the best/worst months. In countries like the UK you go up to 8x, though advocating solar in the UK is probably done by few who have looked at the numbers. I'd love it if wind/solar were the magic bullet so many now seem to proclaim they are. They have made great advances, but there are still hard technological obstacles that some seem too eager to just handwave out of existence. Averages mean nothing if you have a week without power. It may be unpopular but I'd rather go with nuclear - we will probably need a high power future anyways to help deal with impending disasters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
smiling you are technically correct, but if you don't mind here i'm going to yell at you in a way I can't do on other message boards full of engineers that get lost in the details and miss the point IF WE DON'T FIX THIS WE ALL loving DIE please for the love of god use that as your mental framing *starting point* in how you think about and phrase things. to give a wildly oversimplified example: Scenario A: we have a grid with massive intermittancy challenges that sometimes results in brown outs, black outs, trips, and all manner of new issues while costing more AND WE LIVE Scenario B: hmm we just can't seem to make the new stuff work 101% as good or better than everything we have now in every way at all times AND WE DIE You can make a lot of dismissive and very technically accurate posts and conversational remarks where you sound smart in talking about the challenges and drawbacks... BUT YOU'RE BEING A GODDAMN PSYCHO HELLBENT ON KILLING US ALL again, sorry to take out my hacker news rage on your one little post here, but I just cannot loving take the utterly false framing that all these nitpicks matter at all IF WE'RE DEAD
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:smiling you are technically correct, but if you don't mind here i'm going to yell at you in a way I can't do on other message boards full of engineers that get lost in the details and miss the point The same exact take could be made with regards to anyone insisting we take nuclear out of the mix of carbon-free energy, especially from ostensible lefties. If you think we can change the entirety of the health care industry, drat the supposed costs and bureaucratic red tape, then it rings pretty hollow when you insist that regulations and economics preclude the possibility of a nationalization and reformation of the nuclear energy industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:smiling you are technically correct, but if you don't mind here i'm going to yell at you in a way I can't do on other message boards full of engineers that get lost in the details and miss the point But I have yet to see this from scientific perspective beyond "this guy has a model where we all die in 20 years" that runs contrary to every bit of science I've ever learned. It's absolutely not the starting point of the discussion without an argument of that statement's truth. Maybe it is for less developed parts of the world, and for certain geographical areas, but not for humanity as a whole, and not for the posters on this forum. It will certainly result in a big disruption in our daily lives even in the pampered US and EU. Many plants and animals will go extinct. What's the time frame where we all loving die? What's the mechanism where the Earth is literally uninhabitable? If 50 degrees North/South latitude is suddenly the new temperate zone for terrestrial life, and the redwoods die because they can't live in a climate that warm, does it become a desert overnight? Do disaster movie tornadoes and firestorms consume billions of people? Or does the slow decline of food production and water security kill people slowly as there's not enough to go around anymore. Be specific, what's making us go extinct? And is there a level where non-extinct disruption happens? It's just not practical to make the Earth green in the next decade, so what are we looking at in the 30 years it will take us to actually kill the Boomers and make something happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'll preface this with the statement that I'm fully on board with climate science, the urgency of the issue, and the solutions. But... For the record you're either lying to us or lying to yourself but either way you're wrong. The IPCC reports pretty clearly show that a "BAU" scenario will lead to hundreds of millions of dead people by the end of the century, and they don't even dare to predict after that. And those are IPCC reports, the most watered down and conservative thing you could possibly imagine. If you account for the fact that BECCS is magic fairy dust technology and the radiative forcing factor in AR6 is looking to be much higher than it has been assumed to be so far, you can very easily move those 100+M bodies back from 2100 to, i dunno, 2050. What the gently caress does it matter. If you're posting on message boards in your free time from your air conditioned room about how "well technically 500M isn't all of us i'll probably be fine and extinction is more of a 2150 - 2200 thing we haven't proven yet" well then you're an evil piece of poo poo that should be shamed, shunned, and probably out and out composted at this point. We are way past the point where humoring the skeptics and concern trolls and endlessly negative/contrarian engineer types is... safe. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Aug 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
You should maybe take a breath dude
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:You should maybe take a breath dude oh poo poo I cared about something on the internet lol what a loving loooooooooser
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:This is what will kill us. The "But..." guy. We need to start somewhere with de-carbonizing the world's economy, so what if we decarbonized the low-hanging fruit (the power grid) before we tackle the hard stuff like international shipping? What if we dam every dammable river in the world and say gently caress it to the environmental devastation? Destroying a tiny fraction of the the world's habitats is a small price to pay to save the world, right? If we can reduce carbon emissions by 75%, does it buy us more time to solve the last 25%? If not, it sounds like it's pointless to even try, because a 100%+ carbonless world in 20 years is impossible, it takes decades to build those kinds of infrastructure even once it's decided upon... and it hasn't been decided upon yet. So what policies are going to have biggest impact the fastest? That's where change needs to start... not international maritime shipping which is a drop in the bucket anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'll preface this with the statement that I'm fully on board with climate science, the urgency of the issue, and the solutions. Lol the global economy completely poo poo it's pants in 2007 because A Number Not Go Up, with consequences that many/most people in this thread are still feeling. And yet your response to an unprecedented disruption of global trade, labor, and food production, combined with a massive refugee crisis, sea level rise, and a total shift of the earth's climate is "Well we're not literally going to all die, certainly not right away!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:Well, that is a quote from a while ago. I was going to stay out of this iteration of thread resurrection. Most of humanity lives in climates where peak demand coincides with peak renewable generation, i.e. cooling in summer and not so much heating in winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
"It's ok a billion brown people will die but who cares about them we won't" is one hell of a take. Also though, pointing out that renewables aren't a magic bullet and there has to be heavy nuclear investment as well is good and correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Yeah, IPCCs study is pretty clear in that they are not saying when, but their study highlights that afterwords it won't be super conducive to Human life as we know it. Don't have to say anything about mass death for us to all realize what IPCC means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:You first said "we're all dead" and in one post that became "500 million are dead in 80 years" which is a sane thing to say instead of an insane thing to say. quote:But then you go and say "we can move that timeline 100 years earlier with the magic of negative thinking". quote:We need to start somewhere with de-carbonizing the world's economy, so what if we decarbonized the low-hanging fruit (the power grid) before we tackle the hard stuff like international shipping?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:Goddamn man can you even see what a loving pscyho you're being here? Waiting for
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Whoops, forgot which forum I was in. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
yea me too i should probably go back and edit-tone that down IK's prolly not gonna take it in good spirit
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Regardless of the apparent urgency, you're not going to get any traction with engineers, politicians, or the public at large with "Hey rolling blackouts and poor power quality are gonna be the new normal". At least, not until the effects are apparent to the layman, and it's too late. Climate change is the 21st century Vesuvius and either we engineer a solution, or the human population is going to face a serious bottleneck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
The class societies disagree with your assessment. Things have changed more than realize and you should revisit the topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:"It's ok a billion brown people will die but who cares about them we won't" is one hell of a take. Also though, pointing out that renewables aren't a magic bullet and there has to be heavy nuclear investment as well is good and correct. It's sadly the most likely result in rich countries. We'll get poorer, but loss of live will hardly breach 5 figures directly -western government are strong enough to stop their people dying immediately. It's in other places millions will die, and that'll be malnutrition and starvation and disease from no crops and fleeing homes for slums more than any apocalyptic event.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:48
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:It's sadly the most likely result in rich countries. We'll get poorer, but loss of live will hardly breach 5 figures directly -western government are strong enough to stop their people dying immediately. It's in other places millions will die, and that'll be malnutrition and starvation and disease from no crops and fleeing homes for slums more than any apocalyptic event. People in western style governments are already dying because of extreme weather events, but its not rich people so noone in power gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:The class societies disagree with your assessment. Things have changed more than realize and you should revisit the topic. "Class societies"? Do you mean classification societies? Disagree with me on what issue? If you mean maritime shipping, I have not posted a single word on that topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:"Class societies"? Do you mean classification societies? Disagree with me on what issue? If you mean maritime shipping, I have not posted a single word on that topic. They are also extensively involved in shoreside power generation. And I know things about you by the language you are or are not familiar with. And you should check out what dnv has to say on renewables shoreside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
DNV was willing to continue forking cash into Pattern to bail out Henvey Inlet, and their auditors missed extremely basic poo poo being super broken, so I'm not sure I trust their industry assessments. That farm is still not commissioned or generating, six months later. Pattern has to have lost around half a billion in fines alone by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:smiling you are technically correct, but if you don't mind here i'm going to yell at you in a way I can't do on other message boards full of engineers that get lost in the details and miss the point Shut the gently caress up you loving piece of poo poo if we actually follow your logic we should just spend ten trillion dollars on nuclear power plants and solve the problem so go and support that instead of blowing up at people on the internet suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 11:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:Shut the gently caress up you loving piece of poo poo if we actually follow your logic we should just spend ten trillion dollars on nuclear power plants and solve the problem so go and support that instead of blowing up at people on the internet we? you got 10 trill laying around buddy have at it if not, if you're stuck here in the reality of 2019 with the rest of us (i'm sorry) then your options are: - bernie's plan* - we all die *its a shame bernie's plan has to be as anti-nuke as it is in order for him to win a democratic primary in order for him to win an american presidental election. this is where some people are simply incapable of taking off their "engineer arguing to infinity" hat and put on their "human being" hat (assuming the two aren't mutually exclusive, very TBD). StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1165716788304384000 I saw this on twitter cause and the replies are all basically anti-nuclear people, but I was wondering if anyone knows of any good sources debunking or rebutting the points that Derek Abbott makes in that paper? He's a pretty prominent anti-nuclear Australian physicist, he's the editor in chief of the IEEE's open access journal, and he has quite a few articles and papers attacking nuclear energy, but I couldn't find any published rebuttals of his stuff online except for a badly written blog post. Here's some of the stuff he's written: Limits to growth: Can nuclear power supply the world’s needs? Nuclear Power: Game Over Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if not, if you're stuck here in the reality of 2019 with the rest of us (i'm sorry) then your options are: It's not that I disagree with the broad strokes, but yeah dude this is a poo poo argument saying "we do it OR ELSE" when the rational discussion isn't moving your way is subsisting panic for reason like the boiling frog analogy it's an attempt to get around all that pesky thinking to manipulate people into moving in the direction you want. If you are as right as hell, you can argue as such, but that also means people disagreeing with you can't be automatically dismissed Rime posted:DNV was willing to continue forking cash into Pattern to bail out Henvey Inlet, and their auditors missed extremely basic poo poo being super broken, so I'm not sure I trust their industry assessments. Are you out from under the NDA? We were promised an effortpost 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
A Spherical Sponge posted:https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1165716788304384000 I'd heartily disagree with him.  We have to supplant at least half if not more of that energy. There is NOTHING we have right now, renewables included, capable of offsetting that. Nuclear is really the only option energy dense enough to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
A Spherical Sponge posted:https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1165716788304384000 It seems like he hasn't really addressed "what's the alternative", since the status quo is obviously disastrous. -"Insufficient suitable sites" - How does this compare for wind and solar? Those are even more geographically limited than nuclear, which just needs water for cooling. -"Nuclear sites need replacement due to wear" - Solar cells and wind power mechanisms also degrade over time, it doesn't seem likely they would have a lifespan above the 50 years he's estimating for nuclear. Fossil fuel reactors have similar concerns. -"Accident rates" - Again, what are those numbers for wind and solar? Both need to be installed and maintained on a larger scale than nuclear generation, how do industrial accidents there compare to even the monthly nuclear event he predicts in a 100% nuclear world. And of course fossil fuels are responsible for orders of magnitude more death and injury from air quality concerns before we even consider the impact of climate change. -"Radioactive waste" - Compared to the overall volume of toxic garbage humans produce, this is more than manageable. -"Proliferation of nuclear material" - A legitimate concern, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason existing processes wouldn't work. -"Uranium supply" - Seems to ignore that "economically viable" sources of a raw material change as prices and technology changes. Just look at the peak oil scaremongering that's been going on since the 70s. And other than coal, fossil fuels face the same concerns. -"Fusion reactors" - Yeah, everyone seems to be on the same page that this is a moonshot. But it doesn't disqualify using fission reactors. -"Rare earth metals" - Sure, none of those needed for solar, wind, or batteries. -"Depletion of elemental diversity" - This one seems speculative at best. If the question is whether we should be building nuclear plants or renewables like wind and solar, the answer is yes. If the question is whether we should be building nuclear plants or continue to rely on fossil fuels, the answer is overwhelmingly nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Oh man, yeah, completely forgot. I should dump pictures and everything which went bad there, it's not like they can fire me now. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
A Spherical Sponge posted:https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1165716788304384000 I read the abstract of the first link, and it mentioned material scarcity. I didn’t read further but usually I ignore arguments predicated on material scarcity. In the past, a lot of people have written hysterical stuff on scarcity of materials which has ended up to be totally wrong. E.g. it was believed a while ago that indium scarcity was going to doom the display industry. (Indium Tin Oxide, often used in display technology, is a material which conducts electricity, but is transparent to visible light, which is a little unusual and useful in designing displays). This prediction was wrong—TVs are more numerous and cheaper than before. What usually happens is that either the technologists figure out how to use the material more efficiently or use a different material or they get better at discovering and extracting the less common material. AreWeDrunkYet posted:“Rare earth metals" - Sure, none of those needed for solar, wind, or batteries. I don’t think there is a material scarcity problem for solar. They certainly don’t use large amounts of rare earth metals. This is misinformation from the OP of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It seems like he hasn't really addressed "what's the alternative", since the status quo is obviously disastrous. - We don't reuse reactor sites; when a reactor is decommissioned that site becomes a no man's zone. Wind/solar can be replaced on the same site pretty much forever. - An accident at a nuclear reactor is not like an accident at a wind or solar generation site. If a wind turbine has catastrophic failure it might kill someone if they're standing directly under it, but a catastrophic reactor failure results in global (or at least hemispheric) fallout. - Nuclear waste is not like other waste, even just in terms of half-life. I'm not even anti-nuke but the uncritical nuke cheerleading that goes on in this thread doesn't even convince me and therefore has zero chance of convincing the public at large, which is pretty strongly anti-nuke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's not that I disagree with the broad strokes, but yeah dude this is a poo poo argument the only rational response right now *is* panic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:its not an "argument" dude its reality. unless loving zombie Messmer is one of the dem candidates and I just didn't notice. CalmHitler but instead of Hitler it's my roommate and our house is burning down. "Look I understand the need to get out urgently but the tone in which you suggest we flee is really making me think you are overblowing the whole situation and it's not very productive at getting everyone else to agree to evacuate."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
taps LFTRs, wiggles eyebrows
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Family Values posted:- We don't reuse reactor sites; when a reactor is decommissioned that site becomes a no man's zone. Wind/solar can be replaced on the same site pretty much forever. The accident rate for nuclear, even factoring in Chernobyl and Fukushima, is incredibly low.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:25
|
|