|
FAT32 SHAMER posted:Don’t US navy ships and others run on nuclear power? I’m frankly surprised large cargo ships weren’t already also running on nukes just because they consume an insane amount of petrol or whatever oil based fuel per second The Navy runs ships on nuclear power because of endurance concerns, not because it's economical to do so. It emphatically is not. The Navy needs its carriers to be able to go to 30 knots and stay there indefinitely, and it needs its submarines to stay at sea for months on end. Nuclear power does that, but it is fantastically expensive. You'll note that the nuclear cruisers went away decades ago. In addition to the expense, it's a huge political concern: countries or cities that would allow you to dock if you're powered by gas turbines suddenly don't want you anywhere near them if you're nuclear. And there are also large security concerns. And maintenance issues: The specialized maintainers who know how to fix your nuclear ship aren't going to be found in any port you might be nearby when something breaks. There were a couple of nuclear cargo ships but they were publicity stunts and were not economical to operate. The Russians operate a single nuclear icebreaker, down from I think 4 or so (and one of which suffered multiple serious nuclear accidents). Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 9, 2022 |
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
FAT32 SHAMER posted:Don’t US navy ships and others run on nuclear power? I’m frankly surprised large cargo ships weren’t already also running on nukes just because they consume an insane amount of petrol or whatever oil based fuel per second only carriers and subs. we retired the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Navy runs ships on nuclear power because of endurance concerns, not because it's economical to do so. It emphatically is not. The Navy needs its carriers to be able to go to 30 knots and stay there indefinitely, and it needs its submarines to stay at sea for months on end. Nuclear power does that, but it is fantastically expensive. You'll note that the nuclear cruisers went away decades ago. In addition to the expense, it's a huge political concern: countries or cities that would allow you to dock if you're powered by gas turbines suddenly don't want you anywhere near them if you're nuclear. And there are also large security concerns. And maintenance issues: The specialized maintainers who know how to fix your nuclear ship aren't going to be found in any port you might be nearby when something breaks. No, actually Russia has like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_22220_icebreaker Granted, I bet sanctions are gonna put a dent in any more than 4 being operation. They have a total of 6 commissioned and in operation. I know the US Navy is taking a second look at nuclear cruisers because of increasing concerns over fuel availability and Climate Change. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
FAT32 SHAMER posted:Don’t US navy ships and others run on nuclear power? I’m frankly surprised large cargo ships weren’t already also running on nukes just because they consume an insane amount of petrol or whatever oil based fuel per second we never really realized the dream of a nuclear navy for surface warfare
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Navy runs ships on nuclear power because of endurance concerns, not because it's economical to do so. It emphatically is not. The Navy needs its carriers to be able to go to 30 knots and stay there indefinitely, and it needs its submarines to stay at sea for months on end. Nuclear power does that, but it is fantastically expensive. You'll note that the nuclear cruisers went away decades ago. In addition to the expense, it's a huge political concern: countries or cities that would allow you to dock if you're powered by gas turbines suddenly don't want you anywhere near them if you're nuclear. And there are also large security concerns. And maintenance issues: The specialized maintainers who know how to fix your nuclear ship aren't going to be found in any port you might be nearby when something breaks. Interesting, I guess that makes way more sense now Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
I think what may change the nuclear ship thing is how large container ships have gotten and that SMRs have developed a lot further. The gap between how big a ships powerplant you can make good use of (basically you either got a bigger ship or a need to have a faster ship or something else to do with the power (on board hydrocarbon manufacture?) and how small you can make an economical nuclear power plant. HFO power is around 20c / kwhr so trying to achieve that cost at say 40-60 MW scale. I disregard USN reactors out of hand because they are not value engineered to buy or especially operate from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I disregard USN reactors out of hand because they are not value engineered to buy or especially operate from what I understand. That's a safe position to hold: USN Reactors operate on HEU (90%+ Enrichment if not more) and is a significant issue, but increases endurance and stability. France's naval reactors use LEU (20% or less), they stopped using HEU in 1996, precisely because of the issues with using weapons grade materials. SMRs would likely use LEU if used in civilian marine applications. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the Navy took a look at reactors in 2011 with an eye towards including them in the new ship designs (what would become the Zumwalt-class destroyer, the America-class amphibious carrier, and the LX(R) amphibious transports). They basically came away saying that the larger America-class would need oil prices to be $140 / barrel by 2040 ($180 inflation-adjusted) for the naval reactors to be cost-effective. Right now we're more or less on track for their prediction that prices will be about $114 / barrel ($147 / barrel) by then. The smaller Zumwalt and LX(R) would need prices to be almost double that for the cost to pencil out. Of course, who knows how comprehensive that study was. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454?index=12169
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
SMRs boast an intervention model of "Well it broke, just leave it be" by virtue of going waaaaaay into the lighter of fuel designs, such that vessel immersion in a big dumb pool of water is sufficient to manage even a meltdown. I don't know how that'll play out on a ship. Further, there's a shitload of considerations that go into every drat cubic centimeter of the design of naval reactors to simply deal with things like "waves" and "non-inertial reference frame" and "strain loading" You'd also have to convince vessel owners that they Can't Cut Corners, For Real This Time, Promise You, We're Not Just Pulling Your Leg We'll need extremely tightly run inspection & maintenance oversight implemented at the level of the UN, for starters, to prevent operators from running to regulatory shelter states Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jun 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
Then there's the question of what you do when you discover that the regular suspects handed over a bunch of LEU to the Kim family in exchange for stolen bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
I mean one simple, obvious, and correct answer is "destroy bitcoin (& co.) before that has a chance to happen" but tbf the same holds for so many other situations that this specific case doesn't feel as special as perhaps it should
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 07:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:SMRs boast an intervention model of "Well it broke, just leave it be" by virtue of going waaaaaay into the lighter of fuel designs, such that vessel immersion in a big dumb pool of water is sufficient to manage even a meltdown. No bigger dumb pool of water than the Atlantic ocean, I guess the Pacific is bigger. Nuclear tugs in the Mississippi might be a bit courageous. From what I understand, the trickiest part of nuclear reactor design is the high pressure steam side which in maritime terms, is the bit that was heavily developed in the oil/coal fired boiler steam ship days prior to the general trend towards HFO fired reciprocating plant. It may require some tricky further engineering but that is probably the easy bit. One simplifying element is that once you have a design for one 230 DWT container ship, you really do have a design for a hundred of them unlike fixed plant locations which each have individual license and engineering challenges. There is going to have to be an acceptance of some level of incidents. Still a fair bit of focus on how to respond to them and designing the reactors to fail elegantly as achievable and of course, the change from "no safe level of radiation" maxim that pareto punishes nuclear plant design with (ie, getting designs to only emit/spill negligible amounts of radiation vs no radiation at all is a massive difference). We don't design ships to never leak a drop of toxic HFO or cargo. On proliferation, ideally it would come under global rules and include such things as design that make it less useful to recycle reactors over just simply going and getting ore/yellowcake which is relatively cheap and plentiful around the world. I am not sure if having LEU makes that much difference to hiding/sourcing the HEU enrichment facilities (I stand to be corrected on that) and it certainly wouldn't make a difference as far as international re-percussions of having enrichment facilities. Of course, it will be a lot easier if hydrocarbon fuels can be economically synthesized economically with electricity (say from seawater) created by stonking great big nuclear plants on the coast away from population centers - maybe combined with potable water creation. I think that will be strictly aircraft fuel for a while first though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 10:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Then there's the question of what you do when you discover that the regular suspects handed over a bunch of LEU to the Kim family in exchange for stolen bitcoin The problem is you'd need to disassemble the reactor to do that, and its easy to make that extremely difficult is not impossible for a small crew to mess with. And LEU isn't super valuable, KJL has that. Along with emphasis on passive cooling, its easy to make naval nuclear reactors reliable and safe. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jun 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
The anti-proliferation answer from most naval reactor operators is to run a rigorous nuclear chemistry program and periodically check against model again, some very expensive talent that shipping operators won't pay for unless forced. heck, the USN doesn't even pay them very well I proffer that the challenges bring cost to skyrocket to a space that SMRs aren't being value optimized into. Naval SMRs are going to be pretty crazily different from terrestrial counterparts. You can't say "ah, the ocean is on the other side of this bulkhead" and end safety design considerations there. What I'm trying and failing to communicate is that there will need to be a very strong champion for this. The ~invisible hand~ is going to be very, very hesitant to even start investing here without years and years of overwhelming price motivation; see terrestrial SMR development timescales and false starts. Someone with deep pockets and the endurance to see the program through new regulatory capture, design delays, and scary increases in  labor costs . Additionally, the public is going to continue to demand a level of containment perfection for reactor operators far above and beyond that of fossil operators who are free to dump radiation and heavy metals into the atmosphere without consequence. That's the way it should be, so just note that the increased safety and containment standards for nuke operation will never, ever fall.I don't know who that champion would be. Any western government entity with any meaningful degree of power is a fossil patsy at best. China, South Korea maybe? Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
I think that this sort of thing is probably going to happen piecemeal. Land-based SMRs are going to be the industry leaders, perhaps followed by military naval reactors as the designs get refined and the price of fossil fuel rises (either via carbon taxes or global shortages). Right now the tipping point for nuclear power cost effectiveness is around 50,000 metric t displacement - which includes a wide number of cruise liners, container ships, and supertankers. If SMRs are developed that can reduce the need for operators and security agents (which is a major overall goal for the technology) then those ships will be perfect candidates. Maersk is already converting some of its ships to methanol in order to reduce its multi-billion dollar fuel costs, and they're calling for carbon taxes to encourage a industry-wide shift. Even Royal Caribbean's passenger liners estimate that they spend ~$750 million a year on fuel. If these massive companies could reduce that cost by 10 percent by using a factory-made SMR with virtual monitoring then they'd definitely be interested - even if it meant jumping through some additional non-proliferation hoops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The anti-proliferation answer from most naval reactor operators is to run a rigorous nuclear chemistry program and periodically check against model Eh that sounds like a very expensive way to find out someone has stolen some LEU. What CommieGIR and I suggest is engineering to make it not really worthwhile from a state actor point of view. Then just realise some silly wankers are going to steal some LEU every now and again and not know what to do with it (which will happen anyway, but your way we find out it was stolen, our way ignorance is bliss). Point noted about how in the current social and regulatory climate it looks unlikely and trends point to it not happening without some major decision from an organization with deep pockets. South Korea is not a bad guess as they both possess a domestic nuclear industry and sizable shipping construction business. Saying that, South Korea is very focused on growing its economy as THE solution to problems so it would need to have demonstrable phat stacks evident for them to buy in. Hence why keenly watching the gap slowly be bridged between the smallest economical reactor that can be mass produced and the largest power plant needed for shipping. Maybe China? I don't know where they are at with SMRs. France and Russia were probably fairly close (lack of economical maritime shipping know how being the limiting factor) although the Russo-Ukraine war has most likely put paid to ambitions on either of them. On the standards falling front, people say falling standards where I am saying they need to be rationalised. For eg, Japan is umming and ahhing and the world is critically watching what they do with the tritium water from the Fukushima. It looks like they will release it over 30 years into the Pacific ocean. France releases the equivalent every few months. Canada into the great lakes every six months or so. It is not letting standards fall to continue to do no harm to the environment but relax or rethink KPIs that you are trying to achieve. This is achievable, I am huge on standards and a lot of Australian standards have gone from prescriptive you shall do this or have this many number that to a risk based approach and demonstration of the resources, skills and management to controlling those risks as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Those "falling" standards have heralded new achievements in safety statistics that would not have been possible under the old "high standard" days. Getting the green movement to realise that they; more than any other singular organisation, have done more to harm the climate than any other organisation is probably not possible but would help. At least then the likes of Greenpeace would not be doing break and enters to spray paint bullshit on the sides of nuclear facilities and agitating enough that otherwise DILIGAF orgs actually in positions of influence throw them a bone that does more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Huh. I thought the US South/plains wouldn't start hitting grid capacity scenarios/warnings until July at the earliest. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:Huh. I thought the US South/plains wouldn't start hitting grid capacity scenarios/warnings until July at the earliest. Greg Abbott spends all of Texas's energy on his hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
I just did a big double-take: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/15/inside-the-marvel-micronuclear-reactor-project-at-idaho-national-lab.html quote:Yasir Arafat is the technical lead of the microreactor project at one of the United States government’s preeminent nuclear research labs, Idaho National Lab, and he is leading the effort to build a tiny, relatively inexpensive micronuclear reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Who would have ever thought that a profit motive would lead to market failure? Australia's National Energy Market (NEM) was suspended for the first time since inception yesterday. The NEM is the wholesale spot market for the electricity grid covering most of the Australian electricity grid (WA and NT are not connected). The NEM has seen a lot of recent volatility due to a number of events: Coal supply issues due to some flooding of coal mines Gas pricing issues as exporters have capitalised on the soaring global gas market due to the Ukraine conflict An early, colder than usual winter pushing up demand The market operator put in place a pricing cap of $300/MWh to shield consumers from spiking prices. Fossil generators could not cover their fuel costs and withdrew bids. There is some suggestion that bids were withdrawn so the generators could be directed to supply by the market operator, which includes generous compensation. Recent days (and continuing now) have had lack of reserve notices issued and some actual load shedding. The gas companies say that the best solution to the immediate problem is... drill for more gas. The recently ousted conservative parties say the best solution to the immediate problem is... go nuclear (which is well known as low cost and rapidly achievable). Renewables are making baseload generators uneconomical and our transmission grid has plenty of constraints which are also causing issues for distributed renewable generation. This is being addressed but will take time. More dispatchable renewables, storage, and transmission is needed - and is being addressed. Meanwhile fossil fuel exporters are making windfall profits and are largely multinationals that have very good tax minimisation strategies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Australian Labor has always hated clean nuclear power, so I'd say it's safe to say that they're getting exactly what they wanted. More gas and coal plants will surely be the transition solution for a Green Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I just did a big double-take: That made my eyes widen too for a moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Australian Labor has always hated clean nuclear power, so I'd say it's safe to say that they're getting exactly what they wanted. More gas and coal plants will surely be the transition solution for a Green Australia. Australians are generally OK with the concept of nuclear until you pick a location and then the scare campaigns start. There's a growing acceptance that the technology is good but not a cost effective solution here. Coal power stations aren't doing well here because they don't like ramping up and down, and renewables are absolutely eating their lunch due to zero marginal cost to generate. Apart from some rabid coal enthusiasts there's no push for more coal stations but yes we will see more gas peakers. I can't see nuclear being a better fit in these circumstances particularly seeing as we don't have any nuclear industry or fuel cycle here beyond yellowcake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Australians are generally OK with the concept of nuclear until you pick a location and then the scare campaigns start. There's a growing acceptance that the technology is good but not a cost effective solution here. Renewables are eating their lunch in one place: South Australia only. And that's because for the most part South Australia does not have same demand of east or west. Its unlikely that renewables are going to be able to do the same in East or West Australia.   Right now they are not doing so hot either. Every other part of Australia is largely gas and coal. So, 5% of your total Australian energy demand is met by renewables, you got 95% more to go. As an aside, I'm take aback at how much Hydro is utilized in Tasmania. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jun 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Renewables are eating their lunch in one place: South Australia only. And that's because for the most part South Australia does not have same demand of east or west. Its unlikely that renewables are going to be able to do the same in East or West Australia.  When I said "eating their lunch" I meant from an economic viability point of view. For a lot of the year we get a big surge of renewables in the middle of the day and the coal power stations can't compete on price. Coal generators have written their assets down substantially and there's been bugger all investment in new plants, so older plants have increasing maintenance requirements and are failing more often. Another reason why we have the shortfall we have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Well yeah, at a moment in time (9am in winter) it's not great. Yearly is a different story though. Of course there's issues with peak demand, generation, storage. Here's a better reason why Nuclear is better overall, this is from Ontario: https://twitter.com/E_R_Sepulveda/status/1537048560763641856?s=20&t=KHUDhwWpx4q6Nxs0VDRZxQ Solar and Wind meet maybe 35% of their nameplate capacity at any one time on their best days, the rest is always fossil fuels or at best, storage that is few and far between. If the reason to not do nuclear is purely economic, we've got big, big problems on the horizon. Demand is only going to continue to grow, so the idea that we should only invest in things that barely do 40% of their nameplate is a problem. Its fine if we invest in both, but if we argue that, economically, renewables are eating Nuclear's lunch, its only because they do that using appearances only and to the detriment of any actual future oriented energy planning, not on their actual capacity and capability. They cannot meet the increased demand that is coming or replace the fossil fuels that need to go. Those cheap costs during the day only mask the issues on the horizon. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Labor's tentative future plans don't include any coal phaseout whatsoever, and they're pretty quiet about fossil fuels generally. I'd say that it's pretty clear what the future holds. Don't get me wrong, it sucks, and the Greens are blinkered on nuclear power too, but there clearly needs to be a come to Jesus on whether climate goals are worth tackling some old sacred cows. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-does-the-new-australian-labor-government-mean-for-climate-change/
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
95% to go with intermittent and unpredictable energy generation = higher energy prices on average (with times of really insanely expensive power, usually in winter, and times of really ceap power, usually in summer), and possible grid instabilities. The issue of storage is so far largely an unsolved concept. I've personally started to notice that it reminds me of fusion in that it always seems to be off in the future and will solve all our problems. Then you have a new breakthrough, but then it kinda peters out until the next breakthrough that will make this viable happens. I'll believe in it when it happens on a large enough scale to actually make renewables cheap 365. But given the link I gave earlier, which people tended to mostly argue the nuclear part, I am extremely sceptical. I feel a low energy future is what's gonna happen, for a few decades at least. I've just started to mentally accept it and thinking of ways to spend less power and have les things that have no productive value. His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jun 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
I understand the capacity issues and I’m really not arguing for either, just pointing out what the situation is in the Australian grid/market. Nuclear is a non-starter, and even if public sentiment changed overnight and there was bipartisan support, wouldn’t solve the issues we are having right now. The only way nuclear is viable for Australia is some massive government energy security program. I am a big fan of nuclear power and for countries that already have the technology and industry, by all means build as fast as you can. I think the German and Japanese shutdowns of their nuclear fleet were environmental tragedies. I don’t know what the future looks like here but the market has thrown their money behind renewables in a huge way. Coal plants will only get built if they are subsidised. Unfortunately we will see more gas plants, and by extension, gas wells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 05:09
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
Thus as I said, low energy future is the future I believe we will all get, regardless of what last minute tricks one might hope technology will pull out of the hat to save us (I don't think there's any tbh). Just keeping on burning fossil fuels will not help either, that will cause other problems that will likely be even worse, particularly for australia. My advice is to prepare and get used to a new standard of living. Start considering the material things you can shed from your life and do so. It'll be less of a shock when it happens, those who are already adapted mentally to living in a world with less material things will do better than those who are used to constant consuming and wasting of energy. I think streaming services and other data-intesive services will be in the cross hairs eventually, data transfer and storage consumes incredible amounts of energy. I think eventually, broadband will cost more, storage will cost more. It will not be feasible to except more and cheaper data. 10 years form now you might have to kiss ideas like 4k youtube and HD streaming good bye, as well as a host of other things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
I think Australia could soon spin up some (but not immediately sufficient) nuclear building capacity. There is decent project management and trade skills base in Aus which for me is the two biggest things required locally (outside the permitting and filibuster resistance agitation management). South Korean APR1400s took eight years from construction start to commissioning in Jordan, I think that could be improved upon but in any event, 10 reactors in the first 15-20 years and a reactor a year thereafter will likely be sufficient for the NEM long term - renewables and hydro to make up the rest. I agree with the post that the current shortage is what we wanted. We just didn't know what we were asking for/agreeing to when listening to people that said coal had to go and yet nuclear is a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Pander posted:Misrepresented your post for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 10:44
|
|
|
In theory SMRs make it much easier to establish a nuclear generation industry; no need to build site specific installations that take a decade, and because the systems are identical, you can import personnel to operate/train new operators much more easily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
aniviron posted:In theory SMRs make it much easier to establish a nuclear generation industry; no need to build site specific installations that take a decade, and because the systems are identical, you can import personnel to operate/train new operators much more easily. Again, the site-specificness is a regulatory requirement that we have created for ourselves. Simply being able to produce SMRs does not reduce that requirement, and if we want to reduce that requirement we could do it even without SMRs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, the site-specificness is a regulatory requirement that we have created for ourselves. Simply being able to produce SMRs does not reduce that requirement, and if we want to reduce that requirement we could do it even without SMRs. Yeah, I don't think approval for a fixed plant nuclear facility gets that much better if you go "it's only a tiny little thin one, it is only wafer thin, just the one!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Thus as I said, low energy future is the future I believe we will all get, regardless of what last minute tricks one might hope technology will pull out of the hat to save us (I don't think there's any tbh). Just keeping on burning fossil fuels will not help either, that will cause other problems that will likely be even worse, particularly for australia. The US at least (but probably a host of other countries) will let the world burn before passing and enforcing any meaningful legislation requiring significant personal energy use reduction or hamstringing capital. MAYBE if there were some absolutely massive single disaster that killed hundreds of millions globally and that were undeniably, directly attributable to climate change, but not with the slow, inexorable change that is actually happening. Hell, look at Covid response. Bursting hospitals and dying relatives couldn’t get everyone to put a mask on in public. Half of the country’s response to any energy mandates would be to go roll coal harder out of spite. Doom Rooster fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jun 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 12:09
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:The US at least (but probably a host of other countries) will let the world burn before passing and enforcing any meaningful legislation requiring significant personal energy use reduction. MAYBE if there were some absolutely massive single disaster that killed hundreds of millions globally and that were undeniably, directly attributable to climate change, but not with the slow, inexorable change that is actually happening. I'm not saying legislation will cause this or that there will be a mass voluntary reducation of material standards. I'm saying people won't have a choice, like we don't have a choice now about fuel and energy prices. Because the world will burn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 12:24
|
|
|
There's hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves, and the world is quite capable of switching over to more sustainable power sources as energy costs increase. Implementing carbon taxes and removing consumption subsidies is critical for managing that transition without wrecking the planet while we do that, but the outcome isn't really in doubt. The idea that humanity is just going to run out of power, much less in our lifetimes and in the wealthiest nations, seems like a Luddite fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Kaal posted:There's hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves, and the world is quite capable of switching over to more sustainable power sources as energy costs increase. Implementing carbon taxes and removing consumption subsidies is critical for managing that transition without wrecking the planet while we do that, but the outcome isn't really in doubt. The idea that humanity is just going to run out of power, much less in our lifetimes and in the wealthiest nations, seems like a Luddite fantasy. That assumes we consume fossils fuels at a steady rate rather than a rapidly increasing one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 13:00
|
|