|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I mean, you can always just put your industry in a corner of the map so it's not simulated. This is funny. drat. That's almost better than "fever" climate change analogy.
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:If only fossil fuel companies were investing billions in green energy, oh wait they are. At least the UC pension fund can always be funded by increasing tuition. The only green thing I've seen in announcement they're investing into lubricants and cooling/heating liquids used by everything from wind turbines to electric vehicles. Which is undoubtedly a good thing and better than burning it off into the atmosphere but if that's all they did that's a completely different company.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
CuriouMr Interweb posted:"The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189." Any idea how much it’s for natural gas and coal?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Is air travel just completely worthless in a carbon neutral world? Even biofuels still emit carbon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Am I following that correctly? Instead of filling a plane with jet fuel you'd simply pour in liquid ammonia?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Aren't there many things we could turn off - theoretically that would save tons of power? Do we really need the Whole Foods sign bright green at 3AM even when the store is closed? I'd be curious how how a policy like that would scale across the United States. Miami has a interesting thing where all the street lights are off during turtle mating season. Why have them on at all outside of say weekends?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It would be a drop in the bucket in terms of energy savings, but drops do add up. In europe where energy costs are higher they're much more paranoid about wasting power so you have fun stuff like motion sensor lights in bathrooms with 10 second timers leaving you in the pitch black if you're in a toilet stall because those LED bulb pennies add up. I've noticed in some parts of the Midwest and Texas for typical white collar office complexs Air Conditioning turns off at 7PM until 7AM the next day. It's off all through out the weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:We already picked all the low-hanging-fruit of energy savings over the past 40 years. I'm surprised every time I go into the mall of corporate headquarters lobby it's a freezing 66-68 degrees. I sort of wish we'd just acclimate ourselves to 72f or even 74f and that's how they do it in other countries.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Are there any upcoming revolution with energy storage or are just stuck with giant lithium batteries?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Are there any examples of hydroelectric power that aren’t environmental disasters?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
I mean, if we use fossil fuels under our “carbon budget” and don’t go over... sure? Replacing coal with natural gas is a good if not great thing assuming we then replace natural gas with a renewable in less than a decade but that is all theory and not reality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:My local utility is repowering its gas plant but also added a Tesla (unfortunately) battery storage system. Why is this bad? MomJeans420 posted:
I'm a little lost here - are you just explaining that even in an ideal scenario that there will still be significant use of fossil fuels?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Battery storage isn't bad, but I would have preferred not going with a sketchy company who may or may not be around for warranty issues 5 or 10 years down the line. How is that projection optimistic? I'm surprised that we're still using coal in the next few decades... That's interesting how LNG is reducing our carbon foot print and I've read how most (if not all?) of it is from fracking in the Permian Basin. I some ways I don't have an issue with this given that no one really lives their and it's just a desert. It's freaking crazy that in a way fossil fuel companies are now kind of the good guys? I suspect any banning of fracking would just really ban it from areas where there's sizable population along with way more regulations especially methane leaks. Fracking in Colorado and some of the East Coast States has been an absolute disaster. Energy companies should foot the bill and relocate anyone near a fracking site. If fracking was entirely done away with - I think that would just make demand for coal increase? Along with additional oil imports from the Middle East. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Blorange posted:Batteries used for cars have an estimated 10 year lifespan because that's when the battery capacity is estimated to drop under 80%. While that's a deal breaker for an electric vehicle, 80% capacity is still quite functional for grid backups. We'll be seeing a lot of these storage facilities running on old vehicle batteries as we get more electric cars on the road. How are the older Nissan Leaf's holding up?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Blorange posted:This project is making use of Leaf batteries: https://www.tdworld.com/electrification/power-reusing-electric-vehicle-batteries I was more so curious about the vehicles themselves than anything else but that's a positive use case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:You can not take can not take different usage profiles (vehicles, grid storage) and assume similar lifetimes. That dataset is a self-reported survey of what the cars estimated range at 100% charge is. Why can’t we take different usage profiles? Is that sample size insignificant? Anyhow, your original argument was these batteries wouldn’t last longer than 3-5 years - this data proves that completely false. And the problem is global warming due to fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere. The use of an EV overwhelmingly reduces that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't get why people hate the company who puts out lovely cars with known-defective battery packs? I have yet to be persuaded that Telsa is on say the same footing as Enron. Is their CEO just a loud playboy? Are there significant financial issues with company? Problems with quality? Yes but even if they went bankrupt auto manufactures would be immediately be swarming over that corpse like vultures. There is certainly value - the degree of that may be up to discussion - but claiming that it's all worthless strikes me as completely wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:
From earlier you stated... Smiling Demon posted:I think you are being absurdly optimistic in your projections here. 10 years was a very very high estimate, I doubt you'll being seeing much beyond the 3-5 range, particularly for Tesla. I really can't see storage facilities running on used car batteries given that such facilities would be hopelessly impractical with brand new batteries. Adding in parts of variable utility (and safety) is not going to make things better. You earlier claim does not hold up to scrutiny nor have you presented any data that shows otherwise but the data we do have show they last a hell of lot longer than 3-5 years. We're not looking at different use profiles in this context but they don't work in cars beyond a few years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:I have not said anything about the batteries use in cars, nor do I care to discuss this topic. The context you keep dragging things to, I just don't care about. If you interpreted the context otherwise, apologies if I wasn't clear, but your interpretation was never intended. You directly responded to a claim that car batteries only last ten years and followed up that they only lasted 3-5. I'm not dragging you into anything, you were already there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Example: their poo poo machinery kept puncturing their batteries. Which are tiny vape batteries hooked up in banks of hundreds or thousands, and cooled very poorly. The whole pack can catch fire if a few lovely batteries catch on fire, since Tesla’s battery safety tech is atrocious, and far below industry standards. You're going to have to show me credible sources here...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I say the following not as a Tesla fan--I have no interest in buying a Tesla. It doesn't make sense to me to be an early adopter for new car technology. Cars are expensive to me and I rely heavily on a personal automobile to get around. That explains quite a bit. I've also seen this just strange aversion to nearly any kind of wealth by namely rather leftist groups? I get that Telsa or cars just in general aren't good for environment but at the same time that doesn't discount the enjoyment or lifestyle that has been enable through the creation of the automobile. Maybe some people just buy cars because it's cool but on the flip side people also buy cars because they have places to go and why not do it something nice?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Cool nobody said it was Enron except you though. No one else did say that but that's my general take on frequent claims the company is bad for X, Y and Z reason. fishmech posted:What exactly do you think auto manufacturers would be "swarming" over in 2019? Everything. From employees, real estate, operations, facilities, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Do your own research, idiot.  This was my first Google result Here's What's Really Going On With Tesla Nixing a 'Critical' Model 3 Brake Test That entirely debunks the earlier argument that they just don't test breaks. It's much more complicated than a simple yes they do test breaks or no they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Tesla's are too expensive for what they are, and they are not going to replace ICE cars that way. And Elon is too busy dumping on Public Transit to promote his own projects which are basically doomed to fail from the get go: I'll watch the video later but it strikes me as odd to attack the autopilot system when people already from car accidents all the time in the first place. Personally, I'm all for massive public transportation with bikes secondary but that isn't reality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
How far back in those threads do I have to go to see the musk madness?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:The older Model S cars couldn't do a full track lap without throttling / limp mode, so I don't think the cooling was adequate for that purpose. That may have changed now. Gasland was a great documentary but still a documentary. What would you recommend for reading up on fracking? I've done a bit of light reading and I do see how in "theory" it can be safe but the issues from it that I see are the injection of wastewater back into the ground. The operator misses and puts it all into the water table. I can't recall if the flammable tap water was in Colorado - I think it was in Pennsylvania? - but that certainly seems to be massive disaster directly caused by fracking. That's an interesting predicament we might be putting ourselves into with banning fracking. I guess society would just have to start turning stuff off and do without? To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to that entirely but good luck getting a leader elected into office that would do just that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Nobody will accept rolling blackouts as a valid solution. I'm not saying blackouts. I'm arguing that we simply turn stuff off entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Who is “we” and what is “stuff”? The only practical way to do this is for the power companies to shut off neighborhoods entirely through rolling blackouts. We is society and stuff is whatever uses electricity. I am not saying a "blackout" simply there is on longer power. At all. I am of course, speaking hypothetically but I'm curious what we would be able to power if we immediately mandated everything had to be powered by a renewable sources. I imagine it's not much at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
It's a matter of simple physics that burning natural gas results in less carbon emissions than coal. Reducing emissions is inevitably a good thing. It may not be the end all be all solution but it is something. I do find the predicament of methane emissions due to fracking an issue but I would need to see that there's so much of it that it's net worse than burning coal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a matter of simple physics that its also a massive greenhouse gas that is leaking in the documented radar images above, making the argument that it is 'cleaner' a really poor one. The gas seen above is not being burned, and yet its still making as much an impact on climate change as coal. There's nothing from your images that I'm able to gather that proves natural gas including methane leaks are worse than coal. And, I'm not trying to prove anything. I am merely commenting on the reality of the situation that society demands electricity and using sources that emit less carbon is a good thing. I don't see how climate denial sponsored by fossil fuel companies is relevant - we already know this is true.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its relevant because they own those gas wells? They own the pipelines. They own the infrastructure, and they are the ones lobbying against environmental regs that would help control those leaks because they don't want to pay to fix them. Yet, we're supposed to assume these guys will be better than coal? Yes, they kind of are? Trump’s Methane Rule Rollback Divides Oil and Gas Industry tl;dr - Some Fossil Fuel firms think rolling back methane regulations are a bad idea. They aren't. CommieGIR posted:The reality is: If we don't fix this Now. Within 10 years. We're in deep poo poo. We're already in deep poo poo environmentally, but you are just worried about keeping the lights on rather than the larger issue at hand. You are preaching to the choir my friend. Climate Change is an extensional threat to our ecosystem and humanity itself but yet society is still demanding electricity. The renewable alternatives either aren't enough or don't exist - yet. The political will to reshape society into our carbon neutral society doesn't exist either. Until there's an alternative, I'll pick the least bad one. I don't see how this is complicated at all. We have be pragmatic or we'll accomplish nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
You aren't following my points or the original argument from MomJeans420. The world demands electricity and that demand is growing. You have an alternative that emits less carbon than the other - which one do you choose? The issue of methane emissions or the credibly of the Fossil Fuel Industry are two entirely separate discussions on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Uh oh, you are asking for it now. Please prepare for the oncoming posts by turning your Bible to the Book of Nuke, Chapter 12, Verse 2. I'm all up for a lively discussion, it's cold, rainy and yet and miserable outside. As far as my knowledge is on Nuclear it can be done safely and it's just piece one of the puzzle - India and China are still building a few along with other sources. My only concern is that after the Westinghouse filling for bankruptcy that was a near mortal blow to any new plant construction in the United States.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Gasland is a fictional movie with some truths and half-truths, not a documentary. drat, that's freaking informative reply. I didn't watch second movie but did the creator ever mention any of his mistakes? And how do you respond to the argument raised earlier that methane leaks make natural gas net worse than coal?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah. If you look at the some of the arguments proposed by Deep Adaption advocates - they want us to drop everything we're doing right now and have the entire world focus on climate change. All remaining renewable power would be used and built for primarily carbon capture. Anything extra would be used to run the government or emergency services. Anything that emits carbon be would shut off, banned or confiscated. Essentially, it'd be the cubafication of the world. We would be merely left with what we have at this moment, have to make do or find another carbon neutral way. In a way, I sort of wish would we do exactly this but of course that's not reality. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Lmao getting rid of natual gas isnt going to bring down global civilization. Where do you think hospitals get their electricity from? Emergency services? Cell towers? The data centers that run all the underlying infrastructure? Renewables don’t meet the demands of the above. As for other posts I’m super busy at work at the moment, I’ll respond to those later. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
That whole “Perfect is the enemy of good.” quote applies so well to our current circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The whole "Subsidizing the loving oil industry is why we're in the god damned mess" keeps missing your ears, apparently. And apparently you also missed the part where he pulled a whataboutism and claimed China will do nothing to cut their carbon output, which I can only assume means we shouldn't waste our efforts? No, emitting greenhouses gases is what got us into this mess. You’ve been continuously asked the question, which is has been asked by myself and others - what are we going to replace fossil fuels with given the demand isn’t met by renewables?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hi, my name is methane. I am currently leaking into the Atmosphere as we type this. Guess what I'm 4 time more potent than? CO2. I'm a greenhouse gas and there are active pushes in the Government right now to remove regulations on methane emissions, including kneecapping the EPA's ability to set said emissions. It has been discussed that Coal is still worse then Natural Gas. If you want to dispute that - okay fine - but another poster gave an excellent source showing that is the case. If you disagree with that I’m happy to see those arguments. I’m already well aware methane is worse than carbon dioxide or that the fossil fuel industry has participated in climate denial. Meeting energy demand and those topics are entirely separate discussions. 2. Nuclear Power still doesn’t meet the needs of today’s energy demand. Neither does the current output of renewables with Nuclear even come close. What are we suppose to do? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:You're supposed to remove every energy consuming source you can that you don't deem critical infrastructure. Hope that helps clear things up for you. Personally, I’m kind of interested in this idea but I wonder exactly how deep we’d have to cut.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 19:17
|
|