(Thread IKs:
Stereotype)
|
i already regret bookmarking this thread
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:lmao which one of you bought this banner ad: proclick so far
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:proclick so far still a proclick at 38m in but whoever uploaded it please fix "clientologists" in the overlay text, thanks
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:i need to effort post some stuff from archive things i guess but until then here's some past fun love that pbs felt the need to track down a born-again heresiarch before they could almost take reality seriously
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Tim Pawlenty posted:just read the ministry for the future had a real lol at how optimistic it all is even with the starting point being 'maybe once we have a few multimillion bodycount mass death events there will be enough activist pressure and terrorism to make actual change happen' it was a pretty jarring transition at the point when KSR decided he needed to stop writing about ecoterrorism and start arcing the plot towards "institutions could actually do something" i definitely want to do some airship tourism now, though
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:gonna re-recommend oryx and crake if you want to read a feelgood story where someone actually does something to stop humanity from doing even more damage to the environment
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:I love when we conjecture about adding fillers to roads. The idea of tires rubbing up on ground up plastic binding in cement fills me with a burbly feeling and makes the inside of my head smell like that new-car scented air freshener when asking yourself "is this a good idea" remember that usually the alternative is not "do a good thing" but instead "oh no. oh gently caress no"  https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/tires/web/html/tdf.html it appears this page was taken down shortly after the start of the trump administration so, given the existence and continued production of millions and millions of used tires, is it better to use them as unburnt filler in asphalt roads or is it better to burn them in a kiln, and probably one with dodgy or nonexistent emission control equipment? honestly the technical answer is nobody knows, but you can probably guess. we do know (as well as we can figure with available data) that adding tires to asphalt roads is worse from a CO2 perspective than not using tires, due to the additional processing steps and chemical additives involved. probably still a lot better than chucking them in a fire, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:in Canada there’s an old abandoned mine site that we have to keep frozen forever or else it kills everything down stream of it lol ah yes, the deadly Giant Mine, nestled on the shores the Great Slave Lake nothing to see here, folks!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Sadistic Hamster posted:What qualifies as downstream from Giant Mine? Is it everything... it's everything isn't it. the mine is in yellowknife 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Tabletops posted:do you have a cabin somewhere or are you just gonna roll in the poo poo there is no cabin "somewhere" enough. we will all bear witness and roll in the poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 07:13
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:it's worth noting here that keen is a neo-keynesian, not any kind of materialist. and here he is pumping eco-stalin to a room full of libs. if you stick an earnest lib climate scientist or sustainability engineer in a room with real decision makers they radicalize surprisingly quickly it's actually awesome - you can tell who's a beady eyed industry shill really quickly because they've been in the field for years yet don't give off an aura of existential despair and a confusion as to why they even still try mad props to the folks who stay the course, though
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Rime posted:The workforce necessary to build the "Green Energy Revolution" is this a coordinated walkout or is it just the end of the season and folks aren't coming back next go-around or what? how much of the workforce do yall represent? i mean at the end of the day sustainability work has always been just like game development or working for spacex or working in a mountain town: half the pay is the opportunity to live the dream and employers know that and exploit it heavily. i do independent white collar sustainability consulting and it's been more than half my pay for years. if you're all walking away because you don't believe in the work then regardless of how "good" the pay is, you've been at least partially getting paid in "being part of something" too. when the shine wears off the market forces will do their thing. a new workforce will be trained and paid enough to maintain productivity and profit despite their lack of ideological commitment to the work. wind is too profitable to die just because some folks don't believe it'll save us. i mean there's a shitload of rig pigs still working drills because all they love is money and trucks - no need for windmills to be any different. stack those old blades like cordwood, gently caress it. all that said, the cognitive dissonance required to stick with the project in the face of ~all this~ is huge, and for all the good it does you might as well grab quality of life where you can and try to stay out of the way of what's coming.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 04:50
|
|
on a sane timeframe is calling it done with. There's no value in it. They're walking away.
|
goochtit posted:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 04:55
|
|
the age of sail is back baby, let's do zeppelins next
|
 no idea if these numbers are right or where they came from, but they sound true
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:Usually with EVs the math is either ignoring the emissions in the supply chain used to create them, the emissions created by the energy that powers them or both. if the numbers come from anything like a reputable source this is false and has been for decades if you want to cast doubt on real studies there's all kinds of skeletons in the closet of the life cycle data industry but none that are gross negligence like you're describing. usually it's something like "we only have swedish data for this process" or "they burn a different type of coal in less efficient plants in that part of the world" or "we made a different assumption about this life cycle phase than the other guys for this reason."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:defending every electric vehicle vs internal combustion engine comparison as completely accounting for all systematic inputs for the past 20 years is a pretty bold stance of course not every comparison accounts for all inputs but that's not the point. the point is any comparative assessment on a vehicle-to-vehicle cradle-to-grave basis performed by someone who has any background in the field has accounted for extraction, manufacturing, and use-phase energy origins. it's not hard to find these analyses. if a study doesn't account for those things it's because that's not the point of the study. now would a CEO have their marketing folks cherry pick numbers and hide the fine print to make EVs look better? of course. would the World Resources Institute hire a bunch of ex-World Bank execs and take a ton of corporate cash to create a GHG reporting standard and develop an intentionally hamstrung framework that makes it easy to ignore established methodologies? absolutely would they lobby to use that framework as the basis for regulations so as to avoid analyzing upstream impacts and end-of-life "because we just don't have the tools to evaluate that yet"? yep  quote:https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-1-and-scope-2-inventory-guidance as has been said, the problem is not EVs in particular being better or worse than ICE-Vs, it's the system that EVs are used to perpetuate. honestly I don't have a dog in this fight, all cars are bad, but there's much worse climate reporting behavior going on than bad EV analyses which can be easily rebutted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
i love the mental image of "running every car ever made backwards for its entire lifespan and pumping the result into the ground." It's an impossibly large feat and the energy gradient is awful. even then it doesn't even account for coal and other stationary sources, but we don't have nearly as good an intuitive sense of scale with those. btw here's a good simple example of reporting EV emissions scenarios with explicit manufacturing phase impacts:  it's easy to see how on a mixed grid (2014 EU average, 25% coal, 27% nuclear, 15% gas, 27% renewable) EVs dominate ICE despite higher manufacturing impacts, and it's also easy to see how that doesn't matter at all if you're making more cars at a record rate and driving more miles per car. Note that for the US, in Seattle an EV will be much closer to the renewable number (93% hydro power), and in the Midwest (MISO region) it'll be closer to 100% coal (38% coal, 26% gas, 14% nuclear, 9% renewable...), maybe worse than ICE.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Rime posted:Enjoying Kazakhstan proving my thesis from like two weeks ago. surely any uranium going into a reactor this year has already been processed
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Spend 12 hours breathing through meltblown plastic, the only technology able to prevent infection from the deadly pandemic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
for real though I love my plastic clothes, they are my best clothes and have magical properties our descendants will covet
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
texas is a deeply cursed land, above as it is below https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/west-texas-geyser-oil-well-chevron/ quote:It is fortunate the well turned out to be an old oil well and not an abandoned water well. The Railroad Commission says it has no jurisdiction over water wells. Indeed, this new geyser is located only twelve miles northeast of Lake Boehmer, sixty acres of noxious water flowing from what began as an oil well but was converted decades ago to a water well. Nobody claims jurisdiction over that problem, which first appeared about twenty years ago and keeps growing. 
Spime Wrangler has issued a correction as of 04:25 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Rime posted:Shell’s Massive Carbon Capture Plant Is Emitting More Than It’s Capturing: A new Global Witness report found that it has the same carbon footprint per year as 1.2 million gas-powered cars. this headline and the article are both kind of a mischaracterization of the situation: it's not that the CCS process itself is emitting more than it's capturing (guarantee you it's not), it's that its only capturing 48% of the emissions it's supposed to be capturing (those generated by the hydrogen plant), and 39% of the overall process emissions (including emissions it's not designed to capture, including those associated with generating electricity to power the CCS process) it's a bit of a distinction without a difference but i want the thread to be able to lol at it with more sophistication than vice can bring to the table
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
pygmy tyrant posted:what? it sounds like you’re saying that if you only consider emissions generated physically within the reformer, they’re capturing 48%, in which case they are literally emitting more than they capture by 4% of their process throughput. i'm splitting hairs by taking issue with vice calling it a "ccs plant" when it's a hydrogen plant with a ccs system. the article wasn't clear on which parts of the process were emitting what, and without a careful reading made it sound like the ccs process itself was emitting more than it captured. which would be funny, but wrong, and wouldn't give folks in this thread as strong an argument against CCS as the truth: that it's narrowly effective but broadly counterproductive technology used as greenwashing to support continued fossil fuel use. the net sequestration, all-in, appears to be 39% for the hydrodgen-ccs combined process (cradle-to-gate). which should mean that the hydrogen they produce has a 39% lower CO2-derived GWP per btu than it would have without ccs. I wanted to corroborate that estimate so here's a recent study showing just how bad it really is. the CO2 reduction numbers hold up but holy gently caress the overall GWP is not looking good. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956  hydrogen is loving garbage
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
That 39% value comes from page 5 of "Hydrogen's Hidden Emissions," the report referenced in the article, and explicitly includes "Carbon emissions from the energy used to power the CCS system." I did make a mistake though because it also includes methane emissions. So the HHE report actually reflects better on the technology than the Howarth and Jacobsen article I linked, which shows only a 9% overall reduction in emissions per unit hydrogen produced.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:how dare you bring lifecycle assessment analysis into this thread!!!! its like accounting but the rules are made up and the results don't matter!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
if we feed everybody a vegetarian diet until rendering age and use fuel from their rendered flesh to render yet more flesh, we may be able to create a fully functional net-negative atmospheric capture carbon sequestration scheme, as long as the excess rendered flesh gets stored in the national human fuel strategic reserve and not immediately burned to help liquify tar sands
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Loddfafnir posted:This is great, thanks! This is basically a stripped-down, purpose-built version of the engineering exercise called Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Read up on FMEA and you'll get additional tools to apply. Be warned FMEA is a very highly developed, extremely tedious process that everyone hates, but done right it helps you do things like build space shuttles that only blow up sometimes. If you only take away some high level concepts like Risk = Likelihood * Severity and apply them systematically to a situation then you're doing just fine. That document does a good job of translating the concepts likelihood and severity into relevant metrics (how soon will it occur, how long will the crisis last). Understanding FMEA will give you additional tools for contextualizing the info from that document, like recognizing that how soon is just one component of likelihood and how long is only one component of severity. From there you can think about particular ways in which things might go sideways and identify mitigation steps. Look for ways of reducing the likelihood of a crisis situation, or reducing the severity of its outcomes. Another category that isn't discussed here is detection, and some mitigation steps involve identifying how easy it is to tell if a crisis/failure is coming, how far in advance that information is available and what actions are possible in the time before it arrives. You can then design mitigation strategies that involve monitoring specific warning signs and executing preexisting plans when your criteria are met. RIme's document is an excellent first step. Go through that process in full before worrying too much about adding detail.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Karach posted:This is happening in Canada right now. We have five million tonnes of unsecured nuclear waste, and more to come, and the nuclear industry is trying to find a nice little town in the Canadian Shield where they can dig a hole and bury it. And we need to figure out how to keep thousands of years of future generations from messing with it. I hear Yellowknife has plenty of space next to the arsenic pits, which will kill any Wasteland raiders before they figure out how to breach the casks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1486860015067566083?s=20&t=q8KGU-MEYJ7KIOOHmuSVdQ 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
we're off the peak of US production, but it got all hosed up in 2020 when storage maxed out, prices went negative, and wells had to be shut down. conventional production peaked decades ago, right on time, and we're in the amphetamines phase now with fracking. the current story is that oil companies are running relatively low on reserves (on a decade+ timeframe) and are underinvesting in exploration and development at the behest of investors, who want to maximize their immediate profits by keeping prices high and not increasing production. the trick is going to be keeping prices high enough to pay out maximum dividends while not tanking demand. the other trick is apparently big-dicking russia out of fully cornering the euro natural gas market. natural gas use is climbing fast, and it's expected to overtake coal and eventually oil in the next 20 years or so. it's such a loving crack ping thinking about all these fuckheads still plotting their business-as-usual great-game fossil-fuel world domination on a hundred-year-plus timeline. jesus christ. this is all so stupid. none a this matters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:Did you all hear that by 2040 the New York Pension Fund will only invest in net* zero** carbon*** entities****? *scope 1 emissions **including carbon credits purchased by entities in which the entity owns stock ***co2 only **** gently caress you
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
biosphere collapse:Pepe Silvia Browne posted:all you can do is watch, hoot, and holler
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
product advertising is an Olympic tradition and occidentals are just mad the Chinese are selling nuclear power plants instead of coke
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:"One of BARACK OBAMA'S favorite books" he loves it when people write about his success
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:i read the plot synopsis and his victorious solutions to climate change were an international carbon credit and technological advances he went on chapo to talk about it and he said the book was an exercise in trying to lay out a possible solution - any solution. definitely only a partially successful effort. it's pretty obvious where the exercise took him when ecoterrorism (shown to only be effective when it's doing things like knocking planes out of the sky or freeing slaves) suddenly disappeared as a major factor halfway through the book and he was like "well maybe a new religion, and central banks... and china... maybe... but everyone who matters will be targeted for assassination by capital and only survive with luck and state backing." i doubt he's interested in or really capable of writing an extended down-in-the-weeds description of the multidecade guerilla war he hints at. he just needed to give a few examples and show one would be necessary to make existing world systems seek a new equilibrium. most of the actual violence seems to happen semi-off-screen in his books while he focuses on the social/economic/political systems that might arise to enable postwar stability (as tenuous as that last bit was this time around). KSR is pretty radicalized i think, but self-defines his job as an SF writer as imagining optimistic, plausible outcomes and there aren't a lot of ways to do that here. i think he probably sees ending capitalism as a key part of a real solution but thinks it's even less likely than carboncrypto creating a net-negative economy. which is probably true, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
more like your momdragon deez nuts
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
honestly i was a little surprised with how receptive matt "we've already decided the answer is genocide" christman was to KSR's "hope and community above all things" perspective when they had the interview/he reviewed the book. feels like his recent project of tracing the interplay of american religion and capitalism is rooted in that discussion and i'm interested to see if he eventually synthesizes something cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
there's a great future or at least there was. one word: microplastics. lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2022 18:52
|
|