|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Arkane posted:Bzzt. Food production is growing faster than population, and has been for a very long time. I'm sure that food gets is evenly distributed to all geographic regions according to human population and need as well!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Here's a thought for car pollution: when you get your vehicle inspected, approximate efficiency is tested. You pay more the less MPG you have and the older car you have. Without discussing age, I feel like 60MPG should get $25 (because tags cost money, yo, as they always do) 40 should get...$80 (depending on how people feel about that), 20 should get $300 and after 20 it gets prohibitively expensive. You'd probably want to make a logarithmic function. Remember that this would be a bi-annual thing so it's not a common cost, though I kind of like the fact that it will land on many dumb people 'unexpectedly' and in that is sort of their 'punishment.' I know that with catalytic converters and modern exhaust systems that cars don't pollute very much but getting and refining the oil DOES pollute the poo poo of the Earth. I also know that electric vehicles are enigmatic and different people feel differently about them. They'd have to be accounted for in one way or another but tags probably isn't it - give them the 60MPG pricetag. pwnyXpress posted:I'm sure that food gets is evenly distributed to all geographic regions according to human population and need as well! He's actually got a point. We have -enough- food, if I'm reading those charts right, we're just lovely at distributing it fairly. Now if people would just go on a loving diet and quit wasting food... Verge fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Verge posted:Here's a thought for car pollution: when you get your vehicle inspected, approximate efficiency is tested. You pay more the less MPG you have and the older car you have. Without discussing age, I feel like 60MPG should get $25 (because tags cost money, yo, as they always do) 40 should get...$80 (depending on how people feel about that), 20 should get $300 and after 20 it gets prohibitively expensive. You'd probably want to make a logarithmic function. Remember that this would be a bi-annual thing so it's not a common cost, though I kind of like the fact that it will land on many dumb people 'unexpectedly' and in that is sort of their 'punishment.' you can pry my 92' geo metro from my cold dead hands you statist pig
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:you can pry my 92' geo metro from my cold dead hands you statist pig What if I add a qualifier that you get taxed by the mile instead of straight up? Also dude wtf cash for clunkers the gently caress is wrong w/ you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....are you saying you LIKED Cash for Clunkers? And would you like to know how wrong you are? It got a lot of poo poo cars off the streets. What didn't you like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Verge posted:It got a lot of poo poo cars off the streets. What didn't you like? It also drove up used car prices, putting the remaining clunkers out of reach of the working poor. It's really a lose-lose trade-off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted: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. 46 MPG in its current state? Holy poo poo. Ok, yeah, obv. gently caress off w/ that thing but yeah, he and I were fuckin' around back & forth. But cars don't just get their minerals put back in the ground. We don't bury the fuckers. We recycle...I think. Aw gently caress it who am I kiddin' - ok fine yeah no one shoulda been dumping cars by year it shoulda been done by MPG, you're right, I concede. ComradeCosmobot posted:It also drove up used car prices, putting the remaining clunkers out of reach of the working poor. It's really a lose-lose trade-off. Bicycles get like a million MPG and if not that, moped, man. Moped. I got into motorcycling for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
That depends on a few things, too. Honda calculated that the non-driving cost of a vehicle in CO2 was 22% of what it emitted over a lifetime of 100,000 miles. That would be a combined production, disposal, transportation, resource extraction, etc. That came out to roughly 2.22 tons of CO2. Suppose someone only drives a lovely MPG car about 5000mi/yr and suddenly upgrading to a great MPG car doesn't seem like a great option from a 'green' standpoint. However, it might be far more. There's a (perhaps high-end) estimate of 35 CO2-equivalent tons for a new Land Rover. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted: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. Aren't you like guaranteed to die if you get in a crash in one of those things? I mean yeah that would be good for the environment but I don't think Full On Murder Everyone is a politically viable solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Is there a timeline of expected events if we continue to half rear end any solution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Aren't you like guaranteed to die if you get in a crash in one of those things? Yes an early 90's car is very unsafe by modern standards, and the Geo Metro was significantly less safe than its contemporaries based on injury rates. And this isn't just about its ability to absorb collisions, it's also about the ability to avoid them- a stock 92 Geo Metro had laughably terrible braking and acceleration capabilities (220 feet to stop from 70mph, no ABS, and 13.1 seconds to reach 60mph). Cash for clunkers was still a really bad program. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:That depends on a few things, too. Honda calculated that the non-driving cost of a vehicle in CO2 was 22% of what it emitted over a lifetime of 100,000 miles. Absolutely but if you're destroying a car at 5k miles, you're a fuckwit. A car is barely broken in at your example of 100k. Be real with me, man, who would do that? Lemming posted:Aren't you like guaranteed to die if you get in a crash in one of those things? I just advised people to get mopeds. Just wear a helmet in the geo. Yes, they have driving helmets. Yes, they will protect you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Verge posted:Absolutely but if you're destroying a car at 5k miles, you're a fuckwit. A car is barely broken in at your example of 100k. Be real with me, man, who would do that? You can't wear helmets in cars at least where I live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
The nuclear powerplants in Belgium had their lifespans extended by at least 10 years. The green party in Belgium called it one of the darkest days for the environment because of it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Batham posted:The nuclear powerplants in Belgium had their lifespans extended by at least 10 years. Green parties and many green NGOs appear to be stuck in the 1960s when any environmentalism was good environmentalism. They're still ok at saving individual species or habitats, but have wasted much of their potential to make society more generally sustainable once environmentalism became accepted by people other than hippies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 12:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Batham posted:The nuclear powerplants in Belgium had their lifespans extended by at least 10 years. What would you prefer they replace it with? Nuclear power plants, watt-hour for watt-hour pollute very, very little. Do you know what size of solar farm you need to replace a nuclear power plant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Verge posted:What would you prefer they replace it with? Nuclear power plants, watt-hour for watt-hour pollute very, very little. Do you know what size of solar farm you need to replace a nuclear power plant? Pretty sure you're both on the same side of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Pretty sure you're both on the same side of this. I don't understand. It sounds like he's anti-nuclear and I'm pro-nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Verge posted:What would you prefer they replace it with? Nuclear power plants, watt-hour for watt-hour pollute very, very little. Do you know what size of solar farm you need to replace a nuclear power plant? I've heard if you put solar panels in the clear out area for a nuclear power plant (you can't build anything commercial/residential within X miles of a nuclear station, I forget the number), it would produce more energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
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've heard if you put solar panels in the clear out area for a nuclear power plant (you can't build anything commercial/residential within X miles of a nuclear station, I forget the number), it would produce more energy. Never heard of that. Maybe in some regions but it doesn't look that holds true for this guy Edit: that's not a nuclear power plant at all! I'm an idiot. CommieGIR posted:Read carefully. He is bemoaning the Green Party's response to the extension of the reactor licenses. Oooohhh. I thought he was agreeing w/ them. Ok, then. Thanks, guy. Verge fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I've heard if you put solar panels in the clear out area for a nuclear power plant (you can't build anything commercial/residential within X miles of a nuclear station, I forget the number), it would produce more energy. The number is an exclusion zone radius of 0.65 km according to this report. Even if you take the high end estimate (1.6 km exclusion zone radius -> 8 sq km) for a typical 2 GW site (0.25 GW/sq km) and take the low end estimate for solar from this NEI report of 1 GW / 116 sq km (0.009 GW/sq km), you're off by about a factor of 30.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Phayray posted:The number is an exclusion zone radius of 0.65 km according to this report. Even if you take the high end estimate (1.6 km exclusion zone radius -> 8 sq km) for a typical 2 GW site (0.25 GW/sq km) and take the low end estimate for solar from this NEI report of 1 GW / 116 sq km (0.009 GW/sq km), you're off by about a factor of 30. Also we can probably use that land for something. Moar trees (for CO2). I think people tend to underestimate the stupid amount of energy nuclear plants generate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Phayray posted:The number is an exclusion zone radius of 0.65 km according to this report. Even if you take the high end estimate (1.6 km exclusion zone radius -> 8 sq km) for a typical 2 GW site (0.25 GW/sq km) and take the low end estimate for solar from this NEI report of 1 GW / 116 sq km (0.009 GW/sq km), you're off by about a factor of 30. I believe the radius can be much higher in the US, although I don't know for certain. Also, solar can be much more efficient than that. The Solar Star project that was completed this year has a 580 MW capacity on 13 sq km (which would be .044 GW/sq km). Either way, it is just something I heard. Elon Musk made it as an offhand remark in a talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It took 1.7 Million panels to do that AND 13 sq KM. How do you have 2 avatars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Welcome young one. They're called gang tags. We're not cool enough for them.  I've been thinking about a system like this for years, wondering where I was wrong in my science to think this was somehow a good idea. Except it was. And Bill Gates is pouring money into it.  Moar trees - treesquote:Carbon Capture Plant in Squamish, BC
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Caedus posted:Welcome young one. They're called gang tags. We're not cool enough for them. Bill Gates loves climate change. I remember he wanted to saturate the atmo (or was funding a project or something related I dunno) with silicates or something...can't find it. Was pretty cool. If anyone can find it please link. It was a while ago, I think after he put a bounty on reinventing the condom and before the carbon capture plant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Verge posted:Bill Gates loves climate change. I remember he wanted to saturate the atmo (or was funding a project or something related I dunno) with silicates or something...can't find it. Was pretty cool. If anyone can find it please link. It was a while ago, I think after he put a bounty on reinventing the condom and before the carbon capture plant. Gates funds everything from Mosquito lasers to wind power balloons. His MO is basically to throw money at a lot of stuff that might have a chance of somehow working, even if it seems improbable. It makes sense in that nobody can reliably predict what technologies will make it to market - but it also means that a lot of the stuff he funds will inevitably fail. It's Silicon Valleys approach to startups applied to engineering problems which may or may not work out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
nothing will be done, the earth will heat up and co2 levels will rise until it is unfit for human habitation also http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/manslaughter-charges-dropped-in-bp-spill-case-nobody-from-bp-will-go-to-prison/
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Relin posted:nothing will be done, the earth will heat up and co2 levels will rise until it is unfit for human habitation Don't be so mopey! All-electric vehicles are being taken seriously whereas 10 years ago they weren't even seen as a realistic idea for anyone but a child. Provided the tech works with single passenger vehicles, I'll be getting one as my next vehicle! Harley loving Davidson is working on an electric motorcycle! -hugs- Buddy, the green movement is winning. We've always been winning. The only issue is that it's a race against the clock. Whether we win before time runs out is indeed a question but it's no absolute at this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Verge posted:Don't be so mopey! All-electric vehicles are being taken seriously whereas 10 years ago they weren't even seen as a realistic idea for anyone but a child. Provided the tech works with single passenger vehicles, I'll be getting one as my next vehicle! Harley loving Davidson is working on an electric motorcycle! 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
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. Behold the chiliagon of fatalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
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. Moar trees! Moar!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Verge posted:Don't be so mopey! All-electric vehicles are being taken seriously whereas 10 years ago they weren't even seen as a realistic idea for anyone but a child. Provided the tech works with single passenger vehicles, I'll be getting one as my next vehicle! Harley loving Davidson is working on an electric motorcycle! finally, a motorcycle that runs on coal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
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
|
|