|
Radbot posted:Wow, a carbon sequestration plant that mitigates the carbon of 60 households' worth of transportation (not their heating, cooling, etc.). Truly, technology will be our savior. Do you mean to tell me that brand new technology isn't immediately awesome?
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Wow, a carbon sequestration plant that mitigates the carbon of 60 households' worth of transportation (not their heating, cooling, etc.). Truly, technology will be our savior. that article posted:The operation has been capturing CO2 since May, but its primary purpose is to prove that the technology can work on a much larger scale, taking in up to one-million tonnes per day. Like... the very next paragraph in the article, dude. I should have quoted the whole article in the first place. e- This very thing is why I barely discuss climate change, because it's so difficult to explain to someone why you invest in a project or technology that might help but not 100% solve the problem. "Well it this one plant won't have a significant impact" is not a meaningful critique of this technology, any more than, "one PV mega-site can't do the work of a nuclear plant in the same area, so it's clearly not worth it" is a meaningful critique of PV solar technology. Is the base statement true that this one plant may not have a meaningful impact? Sure, but it's also a demonstration of the technology that can bemassively scaled up to the point where it CAN make a difference. Again with these emerging technologies, this isn't some silver bullet for the problem - it's one part of the global first-aid kit we're going to have to develop to unfuck ourselves. It's not even like North America is new to giant infrastructure projects or anything. Whenever I see some say "this won't work, why bother", I just see "too much effort, not enough profit", and I think that is the ONLY thing in the way of doing exactly what's necessary, and not because we "can't" in any measure of the word. Caedus fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
I interviewed with a carbon capture company 8 years ago that claimed it had the first scaleable carbon capture system in the world. They even had a working prototype. I'm not even going to pretend it was possible some other company existed before them either. For any tech journalism you're better off assuming the opposite of what is printed actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Caedus posted:Is the base statement true that this one plant may not have a meaningful impact? Sure, but it's also a demonstration of the technology that can be massively scaled up to the point where it CAN make a difference. Again with these emerging technologies, this isn't some silver bullet for the problem - it's one part of the global first-aid kit we're going to have to develop to unfuck ourselves. I recently read a book about this - Vaclav Smil's Energy Myths and Realities. He discusses carbon capture, and does the math on the scaling up idea - it doesn't really work. That CO2 has to be liquefied, stored, transported, and sequestered (pumped way underground usually). Those are all steps which require massive infrastructure - which doesn't exist at all today. To make a dent, the new pipelines/storage vessels/pumping underground operations would have to be roughly the same scale as all current oil industry infrastructure, if not larger. That took a whole century to build, and had massive profits driving it the whole way. Imagining large scale capture/sequestration on anything other than a timeline of several decades at minimum is crazy. He makes similar arguments about wind/solar power - scaling up is happening, and will continue, but probably not fast enough to become more than ~30% of the market by mid-century. Energy transitions take a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
In another sign of the seriousness with which Americans are addressing climate change, Toyota is predicting that the RAV4 will soon overtake the Camry as its best-selling car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Compact SUVs are really just tall station wagons. The association they have with the big truck based SUVs is a creation of marketing only.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
rocket_350 posted:Compact SUVs are really just tall station wagons. The association they have with the big truck based SUVs is a creation of marketing only. Also the RAV4 and the Camry have almost identical MPG ratings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also the RAV4 and the Camry have almost identical MPG ratings. RAV4 gets about 24.5, the Camry about 32.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You are very clearly not a member of the green movement and, given your posts in this thread, you clearly know next to nothing about climate change. I have nothing more to add; your posts just annoy me greatly. I'll be honest with you, I never really sank my teeth into the nitty gritty. I'm not the best, I'm not the worst. I think oil drilling is terrible for the environment and it's really my big issue, even though my hot button is more toward the topical destruction rather than atmospheric. That being said, just because you and I may have different views on what is 'green enough for now' and my life doesn't revolve around being green (as much as it really, probably logically should) doesn't mean I'm not vegemite eating hipster. Furthermore, all 3 vehicles I've ever bought myself (not counting the car my father got me that I drove for a year getting 25 MPG 10 years ago) have been 40+ MPG (that's calculated using trip meter and receipts, not stated) and all had a low manufacture footprint - this is a lifestyle I decided to reach for when I was 15, I have achieved it. So unless you need to bicycle everywhere to be part of your little club, I think I qualify. ComradeCosmobot posted:In another sign of the seriousness with which Americans are addressing climate change, Toyota is predicting that the RAV4 will soon overtake the Camry as its best-selling car. The fact that it's socially acceptable to buy a new Camry with its out-of-the-box environmental impact and manufacturing footprint is appalling. 35 STATED highway MPG is completely unacceptable, not even getting started on the RAV4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Caedus posted:Like... the very next paragraph in the article, dude. I should have quoted the whole article in the first place. Well, one PV mega-site would objectively do far, far more to offset carbon emissions (assuming it was replacing a non-renewable energy plant) than this carbon sequester plant is doing. Sequestering carbon makes no loving sense until we're using primarily non-carbon emitting energy sources, since it's way cheaper to install nuke plants or PV plants per unit of carbon saved. quote:Sure, but it's also a demonstration of the technology that can bemassively scaled up to the point where it CAN make a difference. This is what I'd like to see evidence of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Well, one PV mega-site would objectively do far, far more to offset carbon emissions (assuming it was replacing a non-renewable energy plant) than this carbon sequester plant is doing. Sequestering carbon makes no loving sense until we're using primarily non-carbon emitting energy sources, since it's way cheaper to install nuke plants or PV plants per unit of carbon saved. Some people hate nuclear, though and Fukushima was no help. I'm with you but carbon sequestering would be a non-factor if people just trusted nuclear, which is easier said than done because, well, nuclear is not 100% safe. Many people, as you've seen, won't settle for anything but solar, wind and wave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
the cool environmentalist poo poo i learned about from my farm tending uncle over thanksgiving weekend was Anaerobic Digestion. typical composting plans involve burying waste, but this results in some serious greenhouse gas release due to the decomposition process. anaerobic digesters are basically giant mixers that you funnel compost into along with bacteria or chemical compounds that allow you to run the decomposition/digestion process in a controlled environment that allows you to capture and process released chemicals rather than letting them into the atmosphere. the process results in energy (due to heat produced by the separation process), a small pile of pure carbon detritus, and a chemical slurry that happens to make an extremely effective fertilizer. it's currently only particularly viable on farms due to the best candidate for digestion being methane-rich cow poo poo, but the economic prospects are apparently highly favorable. the power can go back into the grid and the hyperfertilizer boosts the gently caress out of crop growth compared to traditional fertilizers. It was interesting to learn about! although the hyperfertilizer is apparently more effective for grasses than it is for stalks, meaning america's nonsensically excessive corn production won't be as incentivised to get with the program, which is a bummer
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
I don't know what that site is, but the listing on Toyota's website have them both at roughly 25 & 32 (slightly more for the Camry but only on the highway). If I had to guess the people on that site listing their RAV4 primarily drive in the city, while the Camry people mostly drive on the highway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
DolphinCop posted:although the hyperfertilizer is apparently more effective for grasses than it is for stalks, meaning america's nonsensically excessive corn production won't be as incentivised to get with the program, which is a bummer Not that I'm doubting your uncle, but as I understand it, the major grain crops (corn, wheat, etc) actually are grasses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Not that I'm doubting your uncle, but as I understand it, the major grain crops (corn, wheat, etc) actually are grasses. I could be wrong on that last point. All he mentioned was that the fertilizer allowed for more harvest cycles than he had the year before, and that corn didnt end up reaping the same benefits that allowed for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't know what that site is, but the listing on Toyota's website have them both at roughly 25 & 32 (slightly more for the Camry but only on the highway). Fair enough. I think it's self-reporting, but even the self-reporting on fueleconomy.gov gives 25.7 for a 2015 RAV4 (24 for recent year 2WD models) and 28-30 for recent Camrys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Fair enough. I think it's self-reporting, but even the self-reporting on fueleconomy.gov gives 25.7 for a 2015 RAV4 (24 for recent year 2WD models) and 28-30 for recent Camrys. Rav4's for the most part are suv's built on car frames I probably would pick another hill to die on for climate change as there are hundreds of much worst things for the environment. What is crazy to me is how little discussion I hear in these kinds of threads about how bad china's coal is loving everything up considering they are creating 50% of the worlds green house gasses alone and breathing the air in that country is literally killing close to a million people every year and its only going to get worst until 2030 where china claims emissions will peak (Fat chance unless they do some radical stuff to fix it.). Vire fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Vire posted:What is crazy to me is how little discussion I hear in these kinds of threads about how bad china's coal is loving everything up considering they are creating 50% of the worlds green house gasses alone and breathing the air in that country is literally killing close to a million people every year and its only going to get worst until 2030 where china claims emissions will peak (Fat chance unless they do some radical stuff to fix it.). Because it usually devolves into discussions about restricting the number of children developed nations can have and China actually has a legitimate self interest in reducing emissions (because the party bosses have to live in that poo poo too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I saw this on the daily mail yesterday but it had nothing on the study. COP21: New research points to falling carbon dioxide emissions http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d68744a-9cf8-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.html Global emissions to fall for first time during a period of economic growth http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/07/global-emissions-to-fall-for-first-time-during-a-period-of-economic-growth The study http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2892.html Authors and affiliations: quote:School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences, Woods Institute for the Environment, and Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA Blowdryer fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Vire posted:What is crazy to me is how little discussion I hear in these kinds of threads about how bad china's coal is loving everything up considering they are creating 50% of the worlds green house gasses alone and breathing the air in that country is literally killing close to a million people every year and its only going to get worst until 2030 where china claims emissions will peak (Fat chance unless they do some radical stuff to fix it.). Yeah, sure, but China is only half of U.S. in CO2 per capita and U.S. is only 3rd place there. China's not even in the top 10 contributors for CO2 per capita. Only counting major countries here. For an actual list, see the source computer parts posted:Because it usually devolves into discussions about restricting the number of children developed nations can have and China actually has a legitimate self interest in reducing emissions (because the party bosses have to live in that poo poo too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:... I mean, that looks legit - coming from a position of near-ignorance as to reliable authorities on climate change, that is. Mind you, perhaps the implications are meaningless in the long run given the degree of change and its causes, so they haven't exactly published a beacon of hope anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Link to draft agreement: "Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C, recognizing that this would significantly reduce risks and impacts of climate change." It's entirely possible that PM Trudeau pushed this through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:I mean, that looks legit - coming from a position of near-ignorance as to reliable authorities on climate change, that is. Mind you, perhaps the implications are meaningless in the long run given the degree of change and its causes, so they haven't exactly published a beacon of hope anyway. The Global Carbon Project is the main body of researchers who quantify annual emissions, so yes, its legit. There is still massive uncertainty in China's emissions though (the main source of this global decline). A recent paper corrected for uncertain emissions factors in Chinese coal - a correction of 2.49GtC, or 3.5 months of global emissions! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7565/full/nature14677.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
They actually managed to agree on something in Paris? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
It is by no means perfect, but it looks like a good start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
The reports on the COP21 agreement say that governments have agreed to work towards a limit of 2 degrees celsius of warming maximum, but I thought that the scientific consensus was that we're already locked in for a minimum of that much? Also it looks like the pledge to provide $100 billion USD per year appears only in the text’s preamble and isn't in the binding part of the pledge. I mean, it's progress of a sort, but I'm very very dubious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
I believe in an article recently some scientists said that given the current progress towards cutting emissions 2 degrees is inevitable and keeping it under would require drastic emission cuts every year for 20 years starting this year which is very very unlikely. So yeah, probably not going to happen but it's always surprising what our societies can accomplish when aligned towards a common goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Also it's good to aim for an ambitious target because missing it slightly still won't mean we're completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
As I understand it, this agreement creates a good framework for continuing the struggle to cut emissions. National plans need to be revised every fifth year, so there's a continuous process to improve on (or stall, I guess) measures. Also, this time everyone is onboard (or is there still a risk Congress can stop this?  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
this is a very sad day for mankind and a large blow to our very weak democracies
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I believe in an article recently some scientists said that given the current progress towards cutting emissions 2 degrees is inevitable and keeping it under would require drastic emission cuts every year for 20 years starting this year which is very very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Would things be noticeably different today with regard to climate change had the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s? Also, any idea if this will be the warmest year on record yet? It's in the 70s here in the Midwest, it's messing with my head. And yeah, I agree with that one poster saying a lot of Westerners basically live in a constant climate controlled box (car, office, home, etc) so they end up being skeptical/oblivious of climate change as a result. I spent a semester in northern India (Dharamsala) in college, it was extremely apparent what toll climate change was taking on the environment there. As impractical as it may be due to the negotiating strength of the dominant countries at the table (US, etc), there should be some kind of reparations from developed countries to developing and undeveloped ones. The latter tend to bear the brunt of the former's excesses and have more to less with rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Would things be noticeably different today with regard to climate change had the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s? Here is the adoption (section on Loss and Damage starts at 48), and the Warsaw Mechanism quote:52. Agrees that Article 8 [page 26] of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any America Inc. fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
It doesn't even have to be monetary compensation. At least some kind acknowledgement of responsibility and obligation by the developed countries to those areas impacted by their industrial development, especially from those companies which operate abroad.
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:
If it makes you feel better, this is the result of an el nino event and not really climate change
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:If it makes you feel better, this is the result of an el nino event and not really climate change Even then, it's disheartening when you talk to coworkers and they're like "I don't care about climate change as long as I've got 70 degree weather forever." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Even then, it's disheartening when you talk to coworkers and they're like "I don't care about climate change as long as I've got 70 degree weather forever." "I hope you don't like apples"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:It doesn't even have to be monetary compensation. At least some kind acknowledgement of responsibility and obligation by the developed countries to those areas impacted by their industrial development, especially from those companies which operate abroad. I just really want to note that putting the financing part in the non-binding part of the agreement was both a great troll and, well, a mindfuck that this was at all necessary to circumvent a supposedly advanced nation's Senate. I hope that Hillary will continue to abide by the pledge out of sheer spite, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:"I hope you don't like apples" Have a coworker like his. Said something similar. She's fat. I should've known - she called it rabbit food.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
meristem posted:I just really want to note that putting the financing part in the non-binding part of the agreement was both a great troll and, well, a mindfuck that this was at all necessary to circumvent a supposedly advanced nation's Senate. I hope that Hillary will continue to abide by the pledge out of sheer spite, if nothing else. Nothing in the agreement is binding, and the pledge to reduce emissions is impossible without new technologies. We don't have much of a clue what level of emissions would keep temperatures 2C below pre-industrial...could be as high as 1200ppm if climate sensitivity is 1C per doubling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 20:52
|
|