|
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. I don't think that's accurate. Power generation companies can and do get paid for providing baseload and large plants can often provide high margin reactive power and ancillary services. Depending on the pricing market, it can vary from "highest bid-pays all" so that baseload power always gets paid as much as peakers etc, to systems that still provide good incentives to build those plants. Coal plants have actually been retiring recently, but in a bizarre stroke of luck, fracing drove the price of natural gas down in time to have a large chunk of coal plants replaced with natural gas plants, instead of building more coal.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. This is one reason we do not create incentives to develop it. In contrast, renewable energy is uneconomical without public support. Public support is high. This is one reason we create incentives to develop it. Where do you get the idea that public support has any meaningful impact on the economic viability of nuclear, renewables, or other electricity generation technology? The price of wind and solar hasn't been falling because of public support its been falling because the manufacturing processes and equipment has been improving. Likewise, the rise and fall of nuclear in the public eye hasn't really impacted the price of operating or building new plants.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That and a handful of rich guys deciding they really, really like the coal profits they're getting and spend money making sure the coal money faucet stays on. Eh, the coal industry isn't exactly making big (or any) profits anymore...its more that these rich guys/companies know the time is up but they don't want to pay the bill. If you're a smart rich fucker your money is not in coal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:but What does that have anything to do with the fact that an invisible gas leak or a coal ash spill that's only directly affecting one (usually very poor) community doesn't make great news? If that gas leak ignites....that'll be on CNN 24/7. But until then, I think blaming capitalism is the correct go-to d&d jerkoff response here
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 09:26
|
|
atomz
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Pollution and accidents caused by fossil fuels are so common they aren't newsworthy. Nuclear meltdowns are so rare they're extremely newsworthy. See, that's a constructive and thoughtful take on why some risks and impacts are heavily downplayed by the media. However, I think if this gas leak was visible it would have huge media coverage. The location is close enough to LA to make it easy for every lazy news agency to stick a camera on, but since there is nothing to see there is nothing to report. The plume is big enough to divert airplanes, imagine if we could see it!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
From a US perspective, I would add: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Those are just off the top of my head. All do massive amounts to protect our environment and society to this day. In Addition to the aforementioned Endangered Species Act and Wilderness Act that have had massive positive impacts and continue to do so. Also it is the Clean Air Act that is allowing the EPA to put in place the Clean Power Plan without a new act of Congress. So blame the environmentalists for not being "good enough" but it is ignorant to pretend that the impacts of the laws passed on the backs of their efforts only work on the small scale.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't know Nixon was an environmentalist. Here's something that could help complete your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Richard_Nixon
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Crops that encourage increased use of pesticides are known as "organic". We get it, you're mad cause some hippie stole your lover but your neverending need to beat up on the strawman dumbo-greenie adds nothing to this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is a common misconception that organic crops require fewer pesticides and fewer resources. You can see this misconception (at least in terms of the pesticides) in the person I quoted. Actually, the post you quoted never mentioned organics at all. That's why it is a very blatant strawman. Lotka Volterra posted:To be fair, things like Bt crops and crops that encourage the increased use of pesticides are not good from a wider ecological perspective. Look! No mention of organics at all! But yet you had to jump in at attack your organics strawman in the climate change thread. Also afaik everything in Lotka Volterra's post is valid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You seem very testy about organics? Do you happen to live in the Pacific Northwest? No I really don't give a poo poo about organics. I just find your shitposting in the climate thread very annoying. No one but you is talking about organics. Anyway, for those who wanted the discuss the topic of this thread, have some video of the SoCalGas leak: https://youtu.be/exfJ8VPQDTY 1/4 of the methane emissions of California....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The anti-GMO crowd often seems to conflate Monsanto and GMO. I try and nuance their view by pointing out Monstanto, along with most of big agri, is pretty terrible. That doesn't then mean that the process of creating GMOs is terrible, as it can do cool and good things like extend the climate that crops can be grown in so resource poor areas can use more growing area, or add in nutrients to a crop that otherwise doesn't have it so key dietary needs can be addressed in the developing world. Not all GMO tech is aimed towards pesticides. Or bio-sequestration will likely need GMOs to be effective enough by the time we get our act together. Although a lot of people think we still shouldn't be talking about geoengineering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
If people want a less earthship-based* source for the potential effiency rates of buildings here's one too: http://www.rmi.org/Buildings *not a dig, just some people can't get over sod.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
We already have a thread for Monsanto/GMOs, maybe the discussion about the impacts of Monsanto would be best had there?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I think you'll find the answer to your GMO arguments here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Although there is a strong case to be made that fracing has actually helped the climate by replacing coal plants with gas plants. It also has done a lot more to keep oil sands in the ground compared to anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:But I'm trying to make a point about corn here, not quibble over analogies I would suggest you might want to go to the thread for making points about corn. Because I'm going to keep trying to discuss climate change in this thread. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Isn't this mitigated by the massive release of methane into the atmosphere when fracking well linings inevitably fracture? I'm not aware of a comparative analysis in terms of long-term damage, but methane is something like 72x more damaging in terms of warming potential than CO2. US regulations on fraced wells has significantly improved since the practice started, "green completions" is the law now, which means dealing with methane among other things. Still way way better than coal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Shayu posted:But we must save the world. Adapting to and mitigating climate change will in fact require more organization, more technology and more un-natural human interventions. We will need more steel, more concrete, more mines and new farms. The idea that by reducing productivity we would get better resource usage is backassward.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Humans are part of the world too. In fact, if a Universalist Unitarian Rapture happened today, climate change would do far more damage to the rest of the world than if we continue to live here but adapt and mitigate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is the thing that bothers me greatly about climate change. Population growth dictates that we need to increase productivity on existing cropland, but some models of future yields under current climate scenarios suggest that US yields could decrease by anywhere from 31-79% by the end of the century. Right now scientists are working toward a consensus, but no one really knows for certain which is troubling. What is likely to happen under a shifting climate is either we're going to need to develop new, hardier crops or change the types of crops we produce (and hope for the best). It's hard not to resign yourself to the "well, we're doomed" point of view. Something to consider when looking at models of future impacts of climate change on agriculture is that these models often have restrictions on how they consider land-use change. We may for example have new crop of that is opened up because climate change kills a forest that we can't save. Not exactly a heartening outcome but different than if we don't include potential land use change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:We'd first have to stop local governments from expropriating farms from experienced owners, deporting them, and handing the land to government lackies with zero farming experience. Compare domestic food security in Africa pre and post the 1980's (I'm looking at you, Zimbabwe). Agreed, they should have enslaved the white farmers and forced them to work for their new black landlords.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Annual Report 2015: I don't think its logical to draw your conclusion from the evidenced presented. If anything, saving is more important.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Sure... if U.S. dollars have a value in the future hellscape. Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:It wouldn't take more than a few hundred million dollars to convert my community to match with what I have in addition to installing solar panels and batteries in every house and turning every home into a power plant. We'd be warmer in winter, cooler in the summer and breath healthier air while contributing less to fossil fuels. The ARRA was a good example of a program to do just this. Where the feds ponied up the money. Other times utilities can get regulatory kick-backs where the government pays for efficiency programs they run. The idea being that unless someone subsidizes it, efficiency hurts their bottom line.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
onepixeljumpman posted:Having my fourth "descend into a shaking mess over climate issues" moment was enough to make me come back to the forums. At least the thread's palatable. Thanks, UP, for reminding me that I can marry all this to my social concerns as well instead of convincing myself I need to divide my attention. There are such papers put there like you describe. The trick is as this tread shows there are lots of potential solutions with different costs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Throw me into the group going to the fifth step from the other side. Except the sci-fi solution, it doesn't exist. That's usually how I see stage 5 of climate denialism phrased. I do see it on here a lot too. People don't seem to get this isn't a problem we can abandon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I'm not abandoning the problem...but it can't be fixed in my opinion. I'm not abandoning the problem, just declaring there's no solution! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:You can get really angry about it but it still won't change anything. I did retrieval of atmospheric conditions from radar measurement in college, along with some atmospheric modelling. I read quite a bit of climate change papers then, and most have been shown to be too optimistic. Even most of the climate change advocates outside of the actual researchers don't understand how grim the reality is. How most of them celebrated the results of Paris are enough evidence of that. The fact that you can't see how the world's policy and discussion of climate change has been changing and positively may just because you're jaded or may just be outside of the area you follow. Even the climatologists don't understand the global energy system as well as the energy scientists (who conversely don't understand the climate models as well). The Clean Power Plan and the US/China bilateral deals are huge positive steps that will meaningfully improve our mitigation of climate change. Likewise, the foundation laid at Paris was what we needed to do and will be helpful. It isn't sufficient, but at the scale of our problem, we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act. At local levels, there is a ton of political action one can take on climate change. So this idea that because the problem is so vast, we poor little people can't do anything, puts you in the same camp as climate deniers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Is the "status quo" the one from 2016 with an international plan for ratcheting carbon restrictions, where the two largest emitters are both implementing overhauls to their energy system or the status quo of 2010?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:*That* is the issue. If one genuinely believes that you're going to be torn apart by starving hordes at 60 regardless of what you do, maximizing current utility of your resources makes sense. Yes, if you start from a completely unfounded position based in fear and ignorance, you might start making short-sighted decisions...doesn't mean they were the correct choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Climate change won't have effects on returns on investment. Sure thing, you're right Trab. Climate change won't turn the world into Logan's run either. Also, the research is mixed on the impacts of climate change on economic growth in developed economies.....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Policy and discussion can't be seen in a positive light no matter how heart warming it is if reversing climate change is essentially impossible. I could point out previous binding agreements that have had zero effect on year over year increase in CO2 production, but again, that's not the point. Any further CO2 production above the sink level is essentially added to the atmosphere on a timescale longer than human generations. The whole 'we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act.' shows you're treating it like some human rights issue where admitting the problem is 90% of the solution - this is a physical problem. It is like celebrating that a doctor has admitted a terminal cancer patient 'has cancer' and can start his road to recovery. So literally any action the people of earth could do wouldn't be seen in a positive light by you because we can't undo the sins of the past? Climate change can't be "reversed" even if all carbon emissions stopped today. Yes it is a social problem first. This isn't a physics problem. This is a human problem. We need our social institutions aligned because that's the only way we can deal with it. So yes the first agreement isn't perfect. It literally can't be. But it sets on a far better path than the one declaring doom would take us on. Also, I think once again you're assuming that because you haven't read about it no one is doing it. Adaption is a huge part of the discussion and has been since Kyoto died. The fact adaptation and vague references to geoengineering made it into Paris is part of the positive changes to the status quo that you deny are occurring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. But all of what you said has little impact on reality (I agree with a lot of it). Sure, we should be in a better place, but we're not. So when people declare that any policy action less than perfection isn't meaningful because of the scale of the problem, it isn't exactly a helpful comment and could even make further positive policy action less likely. For example, idiots declaring Paris a fraud because it didn't do the impossible doesn't increase the chance of a working global climate treaty. If anything, the constant cry that nothing is working and there's nothing to do only worsens things. There seems to be this idea that somehow it is better to do X first and then handle climate change in our post-X world. I dont think there is time for such delays. We have to address climate change within the existing frameworks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Verge posted:The moped thing is a joke, sorry. Mackelmore, the singer, said buy one. But they are more eco friendly than any gas car, when they apply. Actually, on a non-carbon emissions basis mopeds are often far under regulated for emission controls. Which just brings up the problem that sadly even climate change isn't our only environmental disaster occurring so our decisio making is complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Verge posted:Far less regulated but the major manufacturers (Vespa and Piaggio) offer mopeds that meet the emissions standards for full-size motorcycles. Further, at 100mpg actual no matter how you ride it, the point that most of the environmental damage from gasoline is done prior to ignition becomes incredibly noteworthy. poo poo, I've considered getting one and my primary vehicle is a medium sized motorcycle. Further, I'll point out that I'm more concerned with greenhouse gasses than aerosol toxins at this time. Not to dismiss your point at all. Unfortunately, from a smog perspective motorcycles aren't really good either. For example, there are no US federal Nox standards on motorcycles older than 2006. There are many communities where smog is such a big problem that from a summation of all risks perspective it should actually factor into decision-making. But yeah, my more general point was just the challenge of remembering to include all our other critical environmental needs when considering climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Here's a hint to the future grid planners among us: it is almost always unwise to build out any single generation technology to match a peak.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Lots of hydro was built at the same time as nuclear to balance it out. Modern designs are easier to regulate. Huh? I think you're mistaking the scale of the grid. While outage lengths are a major concern for nuclear power operator, we didn't build hydro to offset nuclear in the US. Instead you just fire up a coal plant or a few gas plants when the nuke calls and says they tripped off and will be down for a month. Sure, hydro might be used to directly respond to the trip, but that's iso dependent and more the reaction the grid operator takes whenever they lose 1GW instantly. Be it a nuke or a coal plant going down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Verge posted:As an Oregonian, I may have a bias regarding my view of clouds. You're probably right. Load following meaning being able to change the output % of the reactor at all to match demand. Most nuclear reactor designs basically make it non-trivial/impossible to go from 60% -> 100% -> 60% all in 24 hours. France has been experimenting and operating their reactors in ways that are flexible like that. I personally haven't read much about the real world pros and cons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Despera posted:I'm in the dump iron in the ocean boat. Man, I was super into iron fertilization in the early 2000s, but I think all the scale research has been really disappointing. Like Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 levels of bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Geoengineering doesn't fix the fundamental problem of climate change, nor its source, it only delays some of the consequences. Do you have any evidence that shows iron fertilization is a good idea, with the benefits outweighing the costs? The problem is mitigation won't undo the damage of climate change either. As much as people don't want to hear it, but geoengineering is inevitable just not a panacea either. Look at it this way, we're already engaged in geoengineering, just without any planning or intentionality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 02:16
|
|