|
Nukes, nukes, and more nukes. And some Solar and wind sprinkled around for good measure.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
GulMadred posted:Why? The Sierra club is hilarious, because its mostly a bunch of rich environmentalist woo peddlers who want everyone to return to nature.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Extending the use of nuclear power significantly is not practical on a near-future timescale without the kind of massive effort and expenditure you could also use for poo poo like geoengineering, global modernization of all industrial equipment, and so on. We're going to spend triple that with renewable grids anyways, nuclear is starting to look cheaper. But no, nuclear we at least have even certified Gen III plant designs, geoengineering is still largely a big 'If'. And I cannot even imagine the cost of a global industrial modernization, but I guarantee it far outpaces the cost of a nuclear buildout.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Is there a way to quantify how destructive uranium mining is vs. coal mining per unit of power generated? https://enochthered.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/the-environmental-footprints-of-coal-and-uranium-mining/ Coal Mining is massively more destructive, as its generally strip mined out, due to the sheer mass in tons of coal you need to mine to generate said amount of power. Uranium mining is a lot more targeted and needs to mine less total tonnage to generate the same amount of power. quote:In 2007-2008, Ranger produced 5273 tonnes of U3O8. quote:This is a coal mine. Specifically, it’s the Blair Athol coal mine in central Queensland, Australia, but there’s no special reason why I chose this specific example of a coal mine. The mine produces 12 megatonnes of coal per year. (This is just a satellite image taken from Google Maps, which anybody can of course easily access So tonnes versus mega-tonnes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yep! Think about that one for a while. Stop making me sad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Just a somber reminder that we've likely already hit 1*C change thanks to all the extra CO2 from the fires in Indonesia 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:And that won't get better - rainforests become more vulnerable after initial disturbance because they need quite a while to rebuild the dense vegetation that maintains high humidity and thereby lowers fire risk, so regrowth forests (and newly-exposed forest edges) will be more easily burned. Yup, and Rainforest in South America is still being decimated at an alarming rate. We're already halfway to the 2*C limit that we set for ourselves. And we're barely into the 2000s. How are u posted:Yeah I understand why they are the way they are (growing up in the 60s-80s didn't help either with the specter of MAD looming over your head) but holy poo poo is it frustrating. I find I have to bite my tongue often because I enjoy my job and the envrio-community does do good work and relentlessly advocates for social and environmental justice. Having to explain to multiple people that nuclear reactors cannot blow up like nuclear bombs is frustrating. Half of the people I explain this to have been under the assumption thank to years of misinformation that nuclear power plants are like nuclear bombs in your back yard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Gave a little talk today at my school on geoengineering. "To solve this massive amount of chemicals we dumped, lets dump some more chemicals" Didn't they recently find the dispersants used in the Gulf of Mexico are having some really bad side effects?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Hundreds of millions of Indians live in extreme poverty. Lifting them out of that is their #1 priority, not whether Earth is 1-2 C warmer a hundred years from now. Ahahahahahahaha! Yeah, they actually give a poo poo about their underclass. That's be a switch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Bzzt. Food production is growing faster than population, and has been for a very long time. Surely Arkane would not cite flawed data. No way, no how.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I guess peak phosphorous is the new peak oil.  Because oil will last forever, amirite?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Verge posted:Plant moar trees. The Palin Answer: "Trees love CO2!" We are outpacing the trees. The trees are not a perfectly CO2 sink, and like any filter, can be over-saturated beyond their capacity
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Verge posted:Thank you. Also, I'm horrified for being on the same side of the fence as Palin. Oh, no, I just brought that up because she literally said that. Oh, and Bachmann did too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Verge posted:Also dude wtf cash for clunkers the gently caress is wrong w/ you? ....are you saying you LIKED Cash for Clunkers? And would you like to know how wrong you are?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Verge posted:It got a lot of poo poo cars off the streets. What didn't you like? It took good, working cars off the streets, put those cars owners in debt to keep the American Automotive Industry floating, and actually was incredibly environmentally detrimental. It damaged the used car scene for at least a decade or more. For instance: You just chastised someone for keeping an 92 Geo Metro (likely a joke, I know) but do you know what sort of fuel milage the 1992 Geo Metro got? 46 MPG City. 50 MPG Highway. Cash for Clunkers was an abject failure and an incredible environmental tragedy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Verge posted:I don't understand. It sounds like he's anti-nuclear and I'm pro-nuclear. Read carefully. He is bemoaning the Green Party's response to the extension of the reactor licenses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I believe the radius can be much higher in the US, although I don't know for certain. It took 1.7 Million panels to do that AND 13 sq KM. Or, I could do 2,333 MW in 2 sq KM with nuclear.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
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. Well, you see, if we collect the carbon, we can burn it again! Progress!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. This. Power Companies are so busy chasing cheap power generation methods to make a profit, we need to cut them out of the picture. It'll never happen, but I can dream.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Private, vertically integrated power companies in states with favorable regulation would love to build nuclear plants. They get guaranteed loans (or can even start collecting projected costs during planning) and make huge capital expenditures which means more money for shareholders. The issue is that there's not a lot of justifiable need for baseline capacity right now until coal plants actually have to start being shut down. .....that was my point. In the face of climate change, power companies are still focused on short term profitable needs instead of urgent solutions and cutting out cheap energy solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Verge posted:The CEO is contractually obligated to maximize profit, the environment not withstanding. His employees are obligated to follow his orders. Teaching a CEO ethics doesn't help anything, his hands are tied. Again, which was the point of why privatized power generation is an awful idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:The company's CEO (in regulated states) would love more than anything to build nuclear if he could justify it to the comission. It would greatly increase short term profits in absolute terms. Rates are set by giving a rate of return on capital investment and nothing is more capital intensive than nuclear. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Either way, the issue at hand is allowing essential infrastructure to be governed by organizations with profit being their primary goal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Is this the thread where we pretend that "greens" are somehow preventing US nuclear development singlehandedly despite being completely irrelevant to every other conceivable issue? .....other countries are doing more in Nuclear development....so, yes. Like China, France, Russia, etc. And no, its not just the greens. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:"other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development" doesn't parse, come again? I mean't to type Nuclear development. Phone posting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I was talking about US nuclear development, I'm aware other countries are different. Had more power? No. Have done a lot to make sure there is as much opposition as possible that they can generate combined with the Sierra Club and others? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real answer is that nuke plants are expensive, and because of the way utility companies are organized (and paid) in many states, they have no incentive to invest in nuclear. Agreed. I've pointed this out three or four times now. Its part of why I'm not a fan of privatized power companies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The uninformed do not have serious positions about nuclear power and would be swayed by forceful campaigning. The entire debate over energy policy w/r/t global warming in the US shows that reality has little bearing on opinions; when facts and economics are on the same side, then there is absolutely no difficulty in bringing people over. No and because of two words nuclear weapons
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I also think you misread my point; the profitability of the technology is all that matters, and public support can influence that, but it's not a major factor. No it isn't
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Why is coal power still in use? Because its cheap and profitable. Maybe I misunderstood your point: But it SHOULDN'T matter, and its why for profit power companies are a problem. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That also depends on what you mean by "profitable." The problem with coal is that it's actually kind of expensive to clean it up. The issue is that it is not immediately expensive. The effects get felt later by people dealing with the pollution or paying to clean it up. It's cheap to burn coal if you ignore the other costs related. It does serious environmental damage that can gently caress up the profitability of other things. Yeah, that is the biggest issue: Its cheap RIGHT NOW, but its a mess in reality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:It's interesting, because there have been small-scale attempts to start to transition coal towns away from being single-industry and it's opposed at every level by the coal companies themselves and politicians. Its kind of difficult, since most of the towns are buried in niche communities that made their entire living off of the mine, and maybe some small mom and pop shops. Its not the first time this has happened, the Appalachia is covered in small, dead towns that dried up as soon as the coal mines left or the railroad stopped coming by. Whitwell, Tennessee where my wife grew up was a largely coal town, the mine closed in 1997. The town is still there, but its mostly retirees and those who cannot afford to leave.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm from the heart of Oil Country and let me tell you this is pretty much spot on. The refineries, the wells, and the businesses all left and took the money with them. Some people were just too stubborn to leave; others were retired and just wanted to live quietly where they were until they died. Others couldn't afford to leave. Some managed to cling to some job or another but once the big oil corporations picked up and left the area was hosed. Yeah, there are multiple towns up and down Tennessee, Virginia and even Georgia that are basically graveyard with some retirees still clinging on. After the mines left, there was no fallback job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Rime posted:I was pretty clear that it's Norman Borlaugs fault, and he wasn't very poor. .....I'm a little confused here. I understand the issues environmentally that you are addressing, but how does increased crop yields and decreased need to use pesticide and herbicide use that coincides with GMOs mean his advances are a bad thing? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Rime posted:Population booms don't trickle off as the food supply does, and Borlaug dropped the biggest crop yield advancements since the industrial revolution on the world and then peace'd out. These crop yields dramatically increased population growth in undeveloped nations, because god forbid any government anywhere take steps to stop humans breeding like vermin (see reactions in this thread), population growth which continues to this day. No, this is a really stupid take on advances in plant breeding and food crops. Blaming Norman Bourlag for population booms is really petty and makes zero sense. Also, blaming Norman for loving Climate Change? That's a riot. You aren't even using that quote in the correct context, he was BERATING people for failing to help provide better, tougher crops that could allow African nations to become an independent food providers. Africa's issues stem from nearly non-stop civil war and genocide, not freaking advances in food crops. Holy poo poo. computer parts posted:Protip: Comparing humans to vermin, especially non-white people, make you seem like a huge racist. Check out his probation record. He really is a loving racist. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Rime posted:Oh, of course, it's extremely racist to think that hundreds of millions of people, of any nationality, dying of starvation in abject squalor is loving horrifying and should have been avoided at all costs. Yes, let's blame the guy who tried to solve that by increasing crop yields. Bravo.Y'know, I suspect getting the Catholic Church to promote Birth Control in Africa, where they currently fight against birth control and safe sex methods, MIGHT have more to do with that than blaming the guy who strove to solve food issues directly impacting those things. Marijuana Nihilist posted:edit: btw the solution to famine is not make more mouths to feed further down the road Norma Bourlag did not advance crop methods and then say "Go ahead and gently caress away, you guys. You're golden" and its incredibly ignorant to even attempt to blame him for overpopulation. Correlation does not imply causation. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:What's a global warming denier to do when their favorite data set starts to show global warming? That fucker will be making up whatever numbers he wants as the world burns around him. He's also the favorite go to for all my conservative friends. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html quote:Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Denial) has broadened his harassment of climate scientists. Get this: He wants NOAA administration to hand over every scientist email that contains words like "temperature" and "climate". Yes, seriously. gently caress you Lamar Smith. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/14/global_warming_took_another_big_jump_in_february_2016.html 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Envirogoons better suck it up because anti-nuclear opinion in the US just hit an outright majority for the first time. gently caress. And there's no good reason for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Probably something to do with this and this (and Fukushima of course). PrivatizedEnergy.txt
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Pro nuke here: I don't see how we can continue to expand our nuclear program without an operational long-term repository a la Yucca Mountain. Well, and we need to start looking into newer Gen III reactors that can burn waste as fuel. Sure, still have waste, but much less longer lived. That and exploring on site reprocessing. Like that will ever happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 22:11
|
|