Climate Change: hope for the biggest I told you so of all time is what fuels us

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Climate Change: hope for the biggest I told you so of all time is what fuels us

«‹›1192 »

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Son of Rodney posted:

It's quite feasible, cheap and most importantly a lot faster to use renewables up to a certain percentage (most sources say about 80%), ... Nuclear imho takes too long and is too expensive in the short run to go full hog on.

Sorry but I don't think this is correct, though it certainly may be the case for germany based sources. Problem is, with PV solar specifically, it sucks real bad and you're just outsourcing your CO2 production. Under the jacobson scheme, the total cost of large scale residential PV in the US would be about $1.5 trillion, and provide a paltry ~4% of the grid power. This is half the estimated cost of the low end of 1.5GW of nuclear.

But it gets worse. Taking into gCO2/kWh equivalent (that is the CO2 emissions associated with the production and manufacture thereof), PV averages around 40-50 gCO2/kWh, where as nuclear is right on par with wind turbines at ~12.

Of course it gets worse still. Because that's kWh produced directly via wind turbines, which on average put out about 17% of their actual capacity, which is what you will always hear quoted when they talk about windfarms. It goes up to some amount, if the wind is pushing every single blade at max rated speed. The other 83% of the time? Yeah you called it, natural loving gas, piped leakily to you direct from Putin.

You're not wrong about the lead time of nuclear, it's too bad we didn't have a model to follow 30 years ago that we could have scaled up like the French oh whats that a French citizen has half the average CO2 footprint as a German one weird I wonder how that is possible.

Anyway 'nuclear takes a long time and we waited too long so let's not bother making it a primary asset in our energy portfolio' is a new take for me. I am afraid your rosy notions about the cost of transient renewables may be off the mark.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 19:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 16:23

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Yeah fundamentally any argument about how long it takes to get going is just an argument for we need to start ASAP.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 19:36

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

New Thread Title: Climate Change: The Greatest Show on Earth

We can cheer on collapse like the Economic Doomsday thread. Integrated gallows humor. Good for mental health.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:00

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Worst Case scenarios that could daisy-chain:

Worst Case #1: Current trajectory gives +2C in 2036
Worst Case #2: +2C triggers rapid slide to +4C (via cascading feedbacks)
Worst Case #3: +4.5C triggers rapid slide to +12.5C (via stratocumulus cloud deck failure)
Overall Scenario: +2C by 2036 → +12.5C

ayy lmao

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:04

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

hahahha oh nooooo

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:05

net work error: Feb 26, 2011

The Protagonist posted:

.

You're not wrong about the lead time of nuclear, it's too bad we didn't have a model to follow 30 years ago that we could have scaled up like the French

Boomer'd again

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:08

COMRADES: Apr 3, 2017; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

If we properly funded ITER that poo poo would have been working by now.

As it stands we'll get a contained fusion reaction right about the time the atmosphere de-oxygenates.

quote:

As a prototype commercial fusion reactor, DEMO could make fusion energy available by 2033.

Could haha

COMRADES has issued a correction as of 20:22 on Mar 11, 2019

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:19

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Fusion research doesn't really suffer from a lack of research dollars, but a lack of feasibility. Let me preface by saying I love fusion, we should continue to work upon the problem, but even after hitting Q=1 soOomeday sOoOon we're still at that point 40-50 years away from a workable commercial plant.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:26

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

How long can Florida's coastal real estate last?

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:

Article: Miami Beach�s battle to stem rising tides
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2015 OCT 03

quote:

Miami Beach has put into action an aggressive and expensive plan to combat the effects of sea level rise. The city is rolling out its plan of attack and will spend between $400-$500 million over the next five years doing so.

Article: Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2017 JAN 28

quote:

The city will embark on a $100 million project to raise roads, install pumps and water mains and redo sewer connections during the next two years across a swath of single-family homes in the La Gorce and Lakeview neighborhoods of Mid-Beach. A sizable chunk of a citywide effort estimated to cost $400 to $500 million, the work is meant to keep streets dry in the face of sea level rise.

From Zillow:

Pricey real estate for a barrier island

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:36

baw: Nov 5, 2008; RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

we must fight climate change with slam poetry

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:52

Son of Rodney: Feb 22, 2006; ohmygodohmygodohmygod

The Protagonist posted:

Sorry but I don't think this is correct, though it certainly may be the case for germany based sources. Problem is, with PV solar specifically, it sucks real bad and you're just outsourcing your CO2 production. Under the jacobson scheme, the total cost of large scale residential PV in the US would be about $1.5 trillion, and provide a paltry ~4% of the grid power. This is half the estimated cost of the low end of 1.5GW of nuclear.

But it gets worse. Taking into gCO2/kWh equivalent (that is the CO2 emissions associated with the production and manufacture thereof), PV averages around 40-50 gCO2/kWh, where as nuclear is right on par with wind turbines at ~12.

Of course it gets worse still. Because that's kWh produced directly via wind turbines, which on average put out about 17% of their actual capacity, which is what you will always hear quoted when they talk about windfarms. It goes up to some amount, if the wind is pushing every single blade at max rated speed. The other 83% of the time? Yeah you called it, natural loving gas, piped leakily to you direct from Putin.

You're not wrong about the lead time of nuclear, it's too bad we didn't have a model to follow 30 years ago that we could have scaled up like the French oh whats that a French citizen has half the average CO2 footprint as a German one weird I wonder how that is possible.

Anyway 'nuclear takes a long time and we waited too long so let's not bother making it a primary asset in our energy portfolio' is a new take for me. I am afraid your rosy notions about the cost of transient renewables may be off the mark.

First of all: I have no idea who jacobsen is or what he's scheming, and don't know much about the US grid situation. AFAIK however, current prices for solar are 1USD per watt of installed capacity (expected to decrease by a lot), so that would mean you could install roughly... 1.5TW of energy for the cost of 1.5GW of nuclear if I'm reading your number correctly? I'm not sure what you mean with "This is half the estimated cost of the low end of 1.5GW of nuclear." Could you elaborate on that? LCOE of renewables on a larger scale have been cheaper than nuclear for a few years now, and will continue to sink drastically.

Your statistic on wind production is pretty much the lowest percentage of full capacity hours per year btw. On average 1500 hours per year can be expected inland, but depending on the actual location can be significantly higher. The US and australia for example propably have a huge area that is untapped prime wind estate that could yield about 2500+ hours of full capacity per year. Saying that 83% of the time the turbines are not supplying energy is kinda misleading too, they're often running with partial capacity and still supply power. This cannot be controlled however depending on current demand, so that is a real problem. The viability depends alot on how quick storage develops into usable large scale solutions.

All in all my point is more that we need to increase low co2 emission energy sources asap, and wind and solar are very capable of being quickly deployed in areas where they make the most economic and engineering sense. A nuclear plant is not the best solution for those areas that are more decentralized and heavily dependent on smaller scale coal or gas stations. Nuclear would make the most sense in huge metropolitan areas with a high base power demand, where a 10 year + lead time is a lot easier to plan for.

I believe that replacing coal asap with anything low emissions is a number one priority, and using cheap and quickly deployable renewables while at the same time building nuclear makes the most sense, instead of putting all of your eggs in one basket.

Also the situation in germany is stupid as gently caress, politics are currently stifling renewable deployment with stupid policies, and decomissioning existing nuclear was absolutely butt-loving stupid.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:54

JuulPodSaveAmerica: Aug 29, 2012

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180828204911.htm
Bumblebees acquire a taste for pesticide-laced food as they become more exposed to it, a behavior showing possible symptoms of addiction.

:ohdear:

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:55

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

The Protagonist posted:

Fusion research doesn't really suffer from a lack of research dollars, but a lack of feasibility. Let me preface by saying I love fusion, we should continue to work upon the problem, but even after hitting Q=1 soOomeday sOoOon we're still at that point 40-50 years away from a workable commercial plant.

It's a difficult engineering/science problem to be sure but all these people say it absolutely does suffer from a lack of funding. :shrug:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/

quote:

More Than a Scientific Problem

Ultimately, the question may be one of funding. Multiple sources said they were confident that their research could progress faster if they received more support. Funding challenges certainly aren�t new in scientific research, but nuclear fusion is particularly difficult due to its near-generational timescale. Although the potential benefits are apparent, and would indeed address issues of energy scarcity and environmental change that are relevant today, the day when we see a payoff from fusion research is still far in the future.

Our desire for an immediate return on our investments dampens our enthusiasm for fusion research, says Laban Coblentz, the head of Communication at ITER.

�We want our football coaches to perform in two years or they�re out, our politicians have two or four or six years and they�re out � there�s very little time to return on investment,� he said. �So when somebody says we�ll have this ready for you in 10 years, that�s a tough narrative to tell.�

In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 million in funding a year, including our contributions to ITER. This is a relatively small sum when compared to the $3 billion the Department of Energy requested for energy research in 2013. Overall, energy research represented 8 percent of the total funding the U.S. gave out for research that year.

�If you look at it in terms of energy budgets, or what�s spent on military development, it�s not really a lot of money that�s going to this,� says Thomas Pedersen, division head at the Max-Planck Institut f�r Plasmaphysik. �If you compare us to other research projects, it seems very expensive, but if you compare it to what goes into oil production or windmills or subsidies for renewables, its much, much less than that.�

However, the finish line has been visible for some time now, a mountaintop that seems to recede with every step forward. It is the path that is obscured, blocked by obstacles that are not only technological, but also political and economic in nature. Coblentz, Neilson and Borba expressed no doubts that fusion is an achievable goal. When we reach it however, may be largely dependent on how much we want it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fusion/comments/5h3182/would_pouring_significantly_more_money_into/

quote:

I think it's definitely worthwhile to outline what could be done with more money, and how the current financial situation is hampering research. Most of the discussion will be US centric, since that's where I understand the funding situation the best. (disclaimer: I'm a fusion scientist currently employed on a DoE grant, located at a US university)

Along with ITER (which would have been built already) we would also have built its competitors, namely FIRE (pdf) and Ignitor (pdf). In addition we'd actually build IFMIF, a necessary step that no one wants to do because it's more about engineering than physics.

Along side of that, we'd also build several stellarators, just in case the answer we get from these experiments is that the tokamak won't work. These would be on the scale of W7-X, or if you prefer NCSX (more about that later).

If the US was to build ITER on it's own it would roughly be a 10 times increase. To build all of these together in the US would probably be a 100 times increase in the current budget. If it was shared around the world, we're looking at a much more modest increase locally (Europe builds ITER, Japan builds IFMIF, US builds FIRE, China builds Ignitor, or something like that).

If you want, you can throw in laser fusion, but that is funded separately from fusion. The money for that comes from the nuclear weapons program.

Now let's compare that to the current state in the US. Right now, with the shutdown of the C-MOD reactor, the two largest working MFE fusion reactors are DIII-D which is almost 40 years old and NSTX which is almost 15 years old. Both of these machines are relatively modest scale worldwide. Neither is on the scale of JET or W7-X, and forget about ITER. Not counting a recent upgrade to NSTX, there has been no new medium scale or larger experiment in the US since 2000. Right now we're squeezing the stone dry on our current machines, and trying to force smaller devices to produce results relevant to machines with 100 times the operating budget, which isn't really easy. NCSX would have been the machine, but it got cancelled in 2008 and there has been no signal from the government that they'd like to revive it or build something similar.

So that's just hardware, let's talk about some other issues that result from inadequate funding.

The lack of experiments means that only very few locations are suitable for fusion scientists. That means if you have any kind of constraint on your living situation (like a partner that needs a specific type of industry) then if those constraints don't line up with the 3 or 4 places in the country with fusion programs, then you're probably going to leave the field. A lot of people leave for this reason.

Here's another issue. To work on fusion scientist I essentially took a 50% pay cut (this is going from salary offers). If I wanted to work in industry my salary would likely be doubled, and if I was willing to work in weapons development or finance, it would likely be tripled. Now I don't expect the government to be able to compete with someone like McKinsey (and yes, I know people that have left to work for them), but I don't see why they can't make salaries competitive with other government funded positions. Essentially you have to be somewhat of an idealist to remain in the field. That, of course, doesn't mean you're a great scientist. More funding means that we might actually be able to maintain and hire talent instead of bleeding it to other fields.

Building off the last point, it seems no one really pays attention to what happens when a machine shuts down. What happens to the C-Mod scientific staff when the machine goes kaput? Some stay and work remotely on other machines, but others just leave. It's harder to attract grad students because they come to MIT for two years and then spend the rest of their time as just another cog in the GA or PPPL machines. By not having projects for scientist to continue on, and students to learn on, the fusion program loses talent, and breeds ill will among the scientists.

This leads to yet another problem. Let's say you had a flat budget of 100 million. You want to build a new machine. So for years 1-5 you spend the 100 million and build the machine. And then years 6-10 you operate the machine. This does not work. Why? Because you only need a few scientists during the building phase, and you only need a few engineers during the operation phase. In the intervening period, one group is unemployed. A lot of them leave and you wind up with a bunch of new people coming in when the phases shift. This again is bad, because you don't keep the operations knowledge or the construction knowledge fresh. You lose it. Honestly, I don't have much faith that we in the US could even build a device on the scale of W7-X. NCSX was an absolute catastrophe, and even the upgrade of NSTX is looking like it was a disaster (NSTX is currently down indefinitely due to a faulty coil). What we should have been doing is constantly building new machines as we operate the completed ones. Keeping the engineers and the physicists employed. This is why the ITER funding is such a huge problem. The money going into ITER now is for building actual hardware. You don't need scientists for that, you need industry. So every dollar that goes out of the domestic program to fund ITER means another fusion scientist position is cut. So with more money we could actually keep knowledge fresh and current.

I've ranted enough for now, but maybe now it's possible to get a feel for what could be done with more money.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions

quote:

MIT Researchers: You might say that we�re not a certain number of years away from a working fusion power plant, but rather about $80-billion away (in worldwide funding). We�ll get into this more in response to one of the other questions, but there are other experiments that could be done in parallel with ITER that would certainly speed up the goal of a demonstration power plant, if there were the money for it. Here is a graph based on a 1976 ERDA (predecessor to today�s DOE) fusion development plan, showing their four paths to a reactor, as well as a business-as-usual funding case that would never lead to a reactor, and in black is the actual funding amounts. (All values are adjusted to 2012 dollars.)

MIT posted:

In the U.S. at least, fusion funding hasn�t been anywhere close to what would be required for a �crash program� to get to a reactor. If it were, it would probably be possible to have a demonstration reactor in about twenty years. (This is not actually that long - given that it takes almost a decade to build a large fission reactor or hydroelectric dam!)

Fusion has a reputation of �always being thirty years away� (or fifty, or twenty). We want to address that head-on here: aside from a few over-optimistic predictions made in the very early days of magnetic fusion research (the 1950s), this reputation is undeserved. The reason it has taken so long to get to breakeven (ITER) is because since the end of the 1970s, funding for fusion research has been continually slashed, up to today, when the U.S. is proposing shuttering one of three remaining tokamak experiments, the Alcator C-Mod device at MIT that we all work on. Despite this, progress has been continuous. But if we had the money, we would be getting there quicker.

Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:01 on Mar 11, 2019

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:55

baw: Nov 5, 2008; RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

it does NOT own trying to pitch long-term development projects in sub-saharan africa where you have a massive "also climate change may wreck everything in ten years" in the risk assessment

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:57

Pf. Hikikomoriarty: Feb 15, 2003; RO YNSHO; Slippery Tilde

Accretionist posted:

How long can Florida's coastal real estate last?

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:

Article: Miami Beach�s battle to stem rising tides
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2015 OCT 03

Article: Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2017 JAN 28

From Zillow:

Pricey real estate for a barrier island

the plan for miami beach is to not be the guy left holding the bag

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:58

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

insanely funny that guy living in that condo complaining about having to see the effects of him living there lmao

# ? Mar 11, 2019 20:59

net work error: Feb 26, 2011

Accretionist posted:

How long can Florida's coastal real estate last?

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:

Article: Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2015 OCT 03

Article: Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2017 JAN 28

From Zillow:

Pricey real estate for a barrier island

Problem is that the current mayor got rid of everything that made Miami Beach cool so it'll be maybe a little more resilient but also boring.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 21:04

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Son of Rodney posted:

First of all: I have no idea who jacobsen is or what he's scheming, and don't know much about the US grid situation. AFAIK however, current prices for solar are 1USD per watt of installed capacity (expected to decrease by a lot), so that would mean you could install roughly... 1.5TW of energy for the cost of 1.5GW of nuclear if I'm reading your number correctly? I'm not sure what you mean with "This is half the estimated cost of the low end of 1.5GW of nuclear." Could you elaborate on that? LCOE of renewables on a larger scale have been cheaper than nuclear for a few years now, and will continue to sink drastically.

I believe that replacing coal asap with anything low emissions is a number one priority, and using cheap and quickly deployable renewables while at the same time building nuclear makes the most sense, instead of putting all of your eggs in one basket.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on broad strokes, but it's more like $3.00/W average currently. Jacobson is the premier author of a 100% renewables roadmap plan that has been a heavily touted and deeply flawed take on how to go whole hog on green energy sans nuclear here in the US.

The $1.5 trillion figure is the estimated cost of what it would take to get four percent of a ~~1.6GW electrical grid powered by residential PV. $1.5 trillion is also half the estimated cost of a 1.6GW GenIV nuclear grid, albeit on the optimistic low end of the scale.~~ it's a loving 1.6TW by 2050 goal fuckin GARBAGE NUMBERS NEVER TRUST EXPERTS OR ME

quote:

Your statistic on wind production is pretty much the lowest percentage of full capacity hours per year btw. On average 1500 hours per year can be expected inland, but depending on the actual location can be significantly higher. The US and australia for example propably have a huge area that is untapped prime wind estate that could yield about 2500+ hours of full capacity per year. Saying that 83% of the time the turbines are not supplying energy is kinda misleading too, they're often running with partial capacity and still supply power. This cannot be controlled however depending on current demand, so that is a real problem. The viability depends alot on how quick storage develops into usable large scale solutions.

Yet another major problem with concentrated solar and windfarms is methane leaks. A 4% leakage of methane from gas-backed farms would wipe out the gains from eliminating coal burning with it. That is to say, if even 4% of the natural gas backup supply is lost, you may as well have just kept the coal plant instead. The industry's admitted leakage rate is 1.6%, which is so far as I know just post-mined stream processing. Does anyone even know what the escaped estimated losses from the mining thereof is?

And, yeah, storage. It's not good. The energy density to cost of even our cheapest workable option, pumped hydro, is real real bad. Compare that to the 25,000 barrels of oil equivalent to 1 pound (about the size of a sugar cube) of HEU.

quote:

All in all my point is more that we need to increase low co2 emission energy sources asap, and wind and solar are very capable of being quickly deployed in areas where they make the most economic and engineering sense. A nuclear plant is not the best solution for those areas that are more decentralized and heavily dependent on smaller scale coal or gas stations. Nuclear would make the most sense in huge metropolitan areas with a high base power demand, where a 10 year + lead time is a lot easier to plan for.

Finally, small scale nuclear is awesome and portable, I think you've got an outdated notion of nuclear power scaling. You can basically fit an SMR on the back of a truck and put it where ever you need the power. This is objectively superior to PV in a CO2-equivalent footprint point of view, and superior to wind from a reliability point of view (and again from a backup GHG leakage). That said, by all means install other types of renewables where it makes sense, I just think it makes sense in far fewer places and under much more restricted circumstances than people realize.

quote:

Also the situation in germany is stupid as gently caress, politics are currently stifling renewable deployment with stupid policies, and decomissioning existing nuclear was absolutely butt-loving stupid.

Moridin920 posted:

It's a difficult engineering/science problem to be sure but all these people say it absolutely does suffer from a lack of funding.

No this is fair, I should have qualified that, comparatively to next-gen fission reactor research.

e; I'm regurgitating numbers from disparate sources so I should check some math. Extrapolating the $3/W in PV, thats gonna be (0.04)(1.6GW)(10^9W/GW)(3$/W) = only $192 million. Hmm, so then $1.5 trillion could get closer to der der 1.5E12/(1.6*10E9*3) = wait no... 1.92E8/0.04 = $4,800,000,000 for 100% PV? I'm mad at these guys now, gonna check their work closer.

e2; oh lol I knew I was making a simple mistake, the 2050 estimated grid size need is 1.6 TERRAwatts so that gives us $192,000,000,000 for 4% PV ahh what the gently caress is oging onn

The Protagonist has issued a correction as of 22:17 on Mar 11, 2019

# ? Mar 11, 2019 21:24

Homocow: Apr 24, 2007; Extremely bad poster!
DO NOT QUOTE!; Pillbug

posting this because I think "fatal horizon" sounds cool

Fatal horizon, driven by acidification, closes in on marine organisms in Southern Ocean

# ? Mar 11, 2019 22:06

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

The Protagonist posted:

Finally, small scale nuclear is awesome and portable, I think you've got an outdated notion of nuclear power scaling. You can basically fit an SMR on the back of a truck and put it where ever you need the power.

my raider gang dreams inch closer to reality

Praise Be to Atom

# ? Mar 11, 2019 22:35

JuulPodSaveAmerica: Aug 29, 2012

Gonna be making a nice bee garden plot in the local community garden thing as things start warming up here. Want my little bumble bros to watch the climate apocalypse with me.

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:07

Ill Peripheral: Jun 29, 2008

Posting in the sadbrains thread

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:16

Mayor Dave: Feb 20, 2009; Bernie the Snow Clown

Accretionist posted:

How long can Florida's coastal real estate last?

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:

Article: Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2015 OCT 03

Article: Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise
From: Miami Herald
Date: 2017 JAN 28

From Zillow:

Pricey real estate for a barrier island

Miami Beach is entirely artificial and the sea will reclaim it in short order

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:28

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

The Protagonist posted:

gently caress yea it is, in fact, a while back the US bought like 21,000 old russian warheads and broke them down for reactor fuel, which still lights some of our cities today. That also makes nuclear power the strongest market incentive for nonproliferation b

Uhhh... it never got built actually. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/us-sues-contractor-for-allegedly-over-billing-on-now-defunct-mox-fuel-facility/

They did restart the W76-2 project though. :suicide:

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:33

Mayor Dave: Feb 20, 2009; Bernie the Snow Clown

I've been reading this book recommended in the last thread called the water will come and the first few chapters are about the creation of Miami Beach, and one point the author makes effectively is that it was a bad idea to build there in the first place and all the initial development was essentially a get rich scheme

Within the first few years of development the place was almost destroyed by a hurricane, and instead of taking it as a warning against further development they doubled down in the most hilarious ways, so nothing has really changed lmao

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:35

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Moridin920 posted:

Praise Be to Atom

Ah but which

*scene open, midwestern wasteland 205X*
*To one side, a group of mercilessly attired marauders with green pageantry*

"YOU-TWO-THREE-THREE. YOU-TWO-THREE-THREE" they chant in unison, picking up fervor and pace.

Across from them an equally menacing group of rogues with red banners

"PEE-YOU-TWO-THREE-NINE. PEE-YOU-TWO-THREE-NINE they chant back, pacing forward now.

The two chants descend into cacophony as the battle line closes and chaos ensues

The Dipshit posted:

Uhhh... it never got built actually. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/us-sues-contractor-for-allegedly-over-billing-on-now-defunct-mox-fuel-facility/

They did restart the W76-2 project though.

Well gently caress. Still, that's 21k warheads broken down and.. awaiting reprocessing... just like all the rest :negative:

# ? Mar 11, 2019 23:48

Percelus: Sep 9, 2012; My command, your wish is

i smoke weed and play video games because building towards a future that won't remember any of us seems like a poor use of time

# ? Mar 12, 2019 00:04

Percelus: Sep 9, 2012; My command, your wish is

humanity could either collectively choose to do something radical about industry and pollution or continue down this destructive path which enriches those in power who are deluded into thinking their money and clout will shield them from the effects of a dying ecosystem

smart money is on the latter

# ? Mar 12, 2019 00:07

Altimeter: Sep 10, 2003

Accretionist posted:

Worst Case scenarios that could daisy-chain:
Worst Case #1: Current trajectory gives +2C in 2036

Worst Case #2: +2C triggers rapid slide to +4C (via cascading feedbacks)

Worst Case #3: +4.5C triggers rapid slide to +12.5C (via stratocumulus cloud deck failure)

Overall Scenario: +2C by 2036 → +12.5C
ayy lmao

i get depressed reading in detail can someone see if they mention how long they estimate the whole scenario 1 ->2->3 progression is likely to take?

# ? Mar 12, 2019 00:13

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

2036 eh, well, we'd probably get some awesome feedback loops that would take us to +4C in let's say four years and then let's be conservative and say clouds disappear a decade and a half after that

So around 2055 we will have our awesome mad Max hellworld

# ? Mar 12, 2019 00:20

Admiral Ray: May 17, 2014; Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

The Protagonist posted:

Rarely? Rarely??

name one good bit of climate change news in the last decade and no paris accords don't count

CO2 concentration getting above 400 ppm is an earthwarming story about the molecule that could!

# ? Mar 12, 2019 00:58

Admiral Ray: May 17, 2014; Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

COMRADES posted:

If we properly funded ITER that poo poo would have been working by now.

As it stands we'll get a contained fusion reaction right about the time the atmosphere de-oxygenates.

Could haha

fusion isn't gonna happen bud, sorry to say. luckily we already have a very large and safe fusion reactor already floating in the sky.

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:00

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

When the next Olympics happens spread aerial version of the Ebola Virus into the air filtration system. While you and your group of committed followers can survive in a sealed shelter in the middle of the Amazon.

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:09

Mayor Dave: Feb 20, 2009; Bernie the Snow Clown

Crowsbeak posted:

When the next Olympics happens spread aerial version of the Ebola Virus into the air filtration system. While you and your group of committed followers can survive in a sealed shelter in the middle of the Amazon.

i'll just move to madagascar and close the ports bing bing bong so simple

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:24

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

I build wind turbines.

To head off lengthy pages of throwing numbers around and people wasting precious hours of their lives: if you think wind turbines are anything other than a wierd way to transfer money around and greenwash things, you're a real dumb gently caress. Full stop. Just shut the gently caress up, you're an idiot. I know, I spent 178 hours up them in the past 14 days alone.

They're poo poo. They have a useful lifespan of 25 years, the engineering flaws with them are massive and paradoxically getting worse, and after you factor in repeated major component replacement they almost never pay off the inherent carbon cost of manufacturing and running the fuckers. Nobody in the industry gives a flying gently caress beyond the paycheck, myself included. Nobody.

Just build shitloads of nuclear plants. We have designs which cost a fraction of the standard model and literally run off nuclear waste fuel. Solar and Wind are there to appease the peabrains of easily distracted green yuppies and distract from the end of civilization in a decade.

Because you can't build enough nuclear to suck all that carbon back out of the atmosphere fast enough to save ourselves. You idiots, you absolute simpletons.

Rime has issued a correction as of 01:30 on Mar 12, 2019

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:25

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Admiral Ray posted:

fusion isn't gonna happen bud, sorry to say. luckily we already have a very large and safe fusion reactor already floating in the sky.

am i hellbanned? i'm gonna fuckin poo poo on solar some more

reminder that PV lifetime grams of CO2 effluent equivalent per kWh delivered is 45 on a good day (12 for nuke/wind/hydro)

We need copper and silver for PV and focusing mirrors, in gratuitous amounts, about 5 tons Cu / MW, and about 13 kg Ag / MW

Again using making GBS threads on The Solutions Project because gently caress them they're loud and ignored nuclear, this comes out to be about 24 million tons of copper and 51k tons of silver in the initial implementation

Also they assume perfect recycling of the initial materials, remember at the end of life it comes out to ~1.2 million meters squared of solar collection area needing replacement every day. That's 1333 tons of copper and 2.8 tons of silver.

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:25

Telephones: Apr 28, 2013

Rime posted:

I build wind turbines.

To head off lengthy pages of throwing numbers around and people wasting precious hours of their lives: if you think wind turbines are anything other than a wierd way to transfer money around and greenwash things, you're a real dumb gently caress. Full stop.

They're poo poo. They have a useful lifespan of 25 years, the engineering flaws with them are massive and paradoxically getting worse, and after you factor in repeated major component replacement they almost never pay off the inherent carbon cost of manufacturing and running the fuckers.

Just build shitloads of nuclear plants. We have designs which cost a fraction of the standard model and literally run off nuclear waste fuel. Solar and Wind are there to appease the peabrains of easily distracted green yuppies and distract from the end ofde civilization in a decade.

a decade? it's more like two or maybe three decades, okay?

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:28

Admiral Ray: May 17, 2014; Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

The Protagonist posted:

am i hellbanned? i'm gonna fuckin poo poo on solar some more

reminder that PV lifetime grams of CO2 effluent equivalent per kWh delivered is 45 on a good day (12 for nuke/wind/hydro)

We need copper and silver for PV and focusing mirrors, in gratuitous amounts, about 5 tons Cu / MW, and about 13 kg Ag / MW

Again using making GBS threads on The Solutions Project because gently caress them they're loud and ignored nuclear, this comes out to be about 24 million tons of copper and 51k tons of silver in the initial implementation

Also they assume perfect recycling of the initial materials, remember at the end of life it comes out to ~1.2 million meters squared of solar collection area needing replacement every day. That's 1333 tons of copper and 2.8 tons of silver.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong solar isn't really a solution, I just like using it as an example of utilizing fusion safely and relatively cheaply. Ground based fusion plants are still 50 years away, just like they were 50 years ago. Fission works and is easy and we know it pretty well, just a bunch of self-heating rocks stuck inside a pressure cooker.

Hydro is a bad solution for our power needs as well since there's just not enough water in the right places to make it work. Nuclear is the best shot we have and even then we'd want to push heavy change of usage habits because ultimately those are what doom us.

Admiral Ray has issued a correction as of 01:38 on Mar 12, 2019

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:36

Mayor Dave: Feb 20, 2009; Bernie the Snow Clown

pretty cool that the only technology that could feasibly replace fossil fuels at scale is both literally and politically radioactive

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 16:23

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

No, you've got about ten years left.

You know in fantasy /sci-fi the trope of an advanced mystical civilization shrouded in time? Lost technology which built vast monuments and allowed for miraculous knowledge?

You're living at the top of it. Three hundred years from now, some wretch is going to dig up the last smartphone you ever bought and take it to the local shaman, to try and divine secrets from a legendary slate of power.

And then that tribe will drink from some source with just a few too many heavy metals / radioactive isotopes in it and the last of humanity will go poof as they poo poo rivers of blood and die.

Boom, the circle of life will have finally consumed itself.

# ? Mar 12, 2019 01:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Climate Change: hope for the biggest I told you so of all time is what fuels us

«‹›1192 »