|
New climate change thread, because the last one got a little too theoretical. Post about how utterly hosed we are and possible solutions/ deranged lols here. Do NOT post about completely theoretical ecoterrorism. In conclusion, Lol. slumdoge millionare has issued a correction as of 14:15 on Mar 11, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
start bombing factories (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
I'm starting this thread of right by giving you how the libs imagination sees us fixing climate change by 2050. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...m_campaign=news It's grim. The part about more people moving into cities and expanding public transit is good though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
The lifespan of climate change threads seems to be shrinking just like ours
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
violence is being done against you you are under existential threat via greed
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
you should probably be a good citizen though and not worry about it and don't do anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
I didn't read the old thread but I heard about the infamous climate change thread from the mental health thread, where it seems to have generated or worsened clinical depression in about half a dozen people I see this new one is also off to a good start
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Wow! Incoming death to all life!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Ted!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
twoday posted:I didn't read the old thread but I heard about the infamous climate change thread from the mental health thread, where it seems to have generated or worsened clinical depression in about half a dozen people I think part of the problem is that there rarely good news on the climate change front so what else is there to do but lmbo at the bad news?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
net work error posted:I think part of the problem is that there rarely good news on the climate change front so what else is there to do but lmbo at the bad news? Rarely? Rarely?? name one good bit of climate change news in the last decade and no paris accords don't count
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Good is relative but the seaweed cutting down on cow farts was neat and the green new deal getting big and jackbooted toddlers accosting boomer politicians is fun. Other uhh 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
net work error posted:I think part of the problem is that there rarely good news on the climate change front so what else is there to do but lmbo at the bad news? It will take a minimum of a few millions years for intelligent life to evolve again and by that time all of our electronic records will be long destroyed so they'll think we were some kind of hyper-advanced precursor race that died to something cool instead of idiots too stupid to stop doing capitalism. Like imagine the beetles that evolved to eat plastic or whatever unearthing a Cheesecake Factory and thinking that it must have been some sort of temple. Iron Twinkie has issued a correction as of 15:58 on Mar 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
None of this would had happened if fungus that could break down dead plant matter didnt take millions of loving years to evolve after trees and poo poo popped up. There wiuldnt have even been amy oil or coal for us to hurn or turn into lovely disposable plastic goods. We got owned by evolution. EvilJoven has issued a correction as of 16:08 on Mar 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
nobody forced humans to start burning fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:None of this would had happened if fungus that could break down dead plant matter didnt take millions of loving years to evolve after trees and poo poo popped up. There wiuldnt have even been amy oil or coal for us to hurn or turn into lovely disposable plastic goods. This is the funniest part, like, are we double+ lucky/unlucky out of all sentient species in the universe? Impossible to know whether everyone gets handed the rope to tie their own noose, but it can't happen here again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
when you think about it, it seems pretty foolish to burn the toxic, concentrated death of past eons for quick dirty energy
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Lol at my friends and coworkers who have convinced themselves that having kids is a good idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
loving cowards lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
ground floor
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Streak posted:Lol at my friends and coworkers who have convinced themselves that having kids is a good idea my bloodline!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Okay new front page, may as well throw this out there again in the spirit of, uh, constructive endeavors, as opposed to... the alternatives. (It's guillotines   )The Green New Deal is a great conversation starter, but there is a crucial piece missing. Nuclear power is the only workable option we have that could scale to and replace our fossil fuel addiction. It would be monumentally expensive, but feasible, to roll out reactors at a rate that would actually meet emission reduction needs, were there political will to arrest the resources towards such a goal. So like, get on the loving bandwagon already if you're still a nuke luddite you're loving wrong son
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
net work error posted:I'm starting this thread of right by giving you how the libs imagination sees us fixing climate change by 2050. I heard this on the radio when I was driving in this morning. They interviewed a woman having a full delusional break acting like it was 2050 and talking about all the cool things that happened, like getting rid of trucks, building a massive solar array in the sahara that gave south-saharan africa cheap power, and electric everything. I couldnt figure out what the gently caress the point was beyond thinking "shits hosed, lets just pretend like we can fix it"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
future looking mighty bleak
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:So like, get on the loving bandwagon already if you're still a nuke luddite you're loving wrong son
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:future looking mighty bleak hey if you're feeling down here's some good news: the human population is going to approach zero by the end of next century
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Okay new front page, may as well throw this out there again in the spirit of, uh, constructive endeavors, as opposed to... the alternatives. (It's guillotines Nuclear not being improved on and forcing us to be stuck with old plants that aren't as good and not as safe as newer ones thus helping people buy into the narrative that it's bad is a cool loop. Solar and other renewables are good but don't scale up as well right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
They don't scale up as well, they aren't a constant meaning we need massive batteries/capacitors to store energy for when the sun is down or the wind is not blowing strongly (and our tech to do that with sucks), the wind turbines have like a 8-10 year lifespan (iirc), and you need to dig up tons of rare earth metals for the solar panels (don't remember if more mining would need to be done vs the mining required to get fissile material for a nuke plant but pretty sure it is more mining for rare earth metals and in shittier areas like the Congo where kids will be doing said mining). In a nutshell, wind/solar is great but afaik it currently isn't sufficient to be the backbone of the electrical grid and there are still more environmental concerns than versus nuclear. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/  http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm  spooky scary RaDiAtiOn though Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 17:42 on Mar 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
succ posted:my bloodline!!!!!!! thank god mine dies with me
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Went back and looked at some numbers, the commonly touted Jacobson 100% renewables plan calls for half a million 5-megawatt wind turbines, and eighteen billion square meters of PV panels, which upon reaching end of life averages out to a little more than a million square meters of PV needing replacement, per diem Overall it's a ~$15 trillion dollar price tag and we haven't even talked about storage yet. Hooboy. Anyway the same output from next generation nuclear plants is estimated at around ~$3-6 trillion, with far less land, maintenance and material costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Is the fuel inside nuclear weapons compatible with power generating reactors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
net work error posted:Is the fuel inside nuclear weapons compatible with power generating reactors? Yeah. Iirc, that's what subs use (smaller, quieter reactors) edit: Accretionist has issued a correction as of 18:57 on Mar 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
net work error posted:Is the fuel inside nuclear weapons compatible with power generating reactors? gently caress yea it is, in fact, a while back the US bought like 21,000 old russian warheads and broke them down for reactor fuel, which still lights some of our cities today. That also makes nuclear power the strongest market incentive for nonproliferation b
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
net work error posted:Is the fuel inside nuclear weapons compatible with power generating reactors? Yeah they blend it with depleted fuel to make it more manageable in a reactor or something like that. Supposedly it's been a thing for a while as part of disarmament treaties or some such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
So let's just do more that. Someone tell AOC or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
The extreme amount of nimby for nuclear power is hilarious. Oddly enough where I'm at we've got power from a nuclear plant and people here really hate windmills instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:They don't scale up as well, they aren't a constant meaning we need massive batteries/capacitors to store energy for when the sun is down or the wind is not blowing strongly (and our tech to do that with sucks), the wind turbines have like a 8-10 year lifespan (iirc), and you need to dig up tons of rare earth metals for the solar panels (don't remember if more mining would need to be done vs the mining required to get fissile material for a nuke plant but pretty sure it is more mining for rare earth metals and in shittier areas like the Congo where kids will be doing said mining). It's quite feasible, cheap and most importantly a lot faster to use renewables up to a certain percentage (most sources say about 80%), after which it gets way more expensive. They're not perfect tho and we need a smart combination of renwables with nuclear and peaker gas-plants to make it work. Nuclear imho takes too long and is too expensive in the short run to go full hog on. Your wind lifespan is way off mark tho, it's more than double what you quoted. In germany we are shutting off wind turbines after 20 years because the compensation per kWh is running out, not because they're unable to run any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Have you considered not burning hydrocarbons? Idk, seems pretty simple to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:It's quite feasible, cheap and most importantly a lot faster to use renewables up to a certain percentage (most sources say about 80%), after which it gets way more expensive. They're not perfect tho and we need a smart combination of renwables with nuclear and peaker gas-plants to make it work. Nuclear imho takes too long and is too expensive in the short run to go full hog on. Fair enough, I'm probably not as updated as I could be. We definitely need a mix and there's no reason we can't do things like cover high rises in solar panels. But if this is true: The Protagonist posted:Went back and looked at some numbers, the commonly touted Jacobson 100% renewables plan calls for half a million 5-megawatt wind turbines, and eighteen billion square meters of PV panels, which upon reaching end of life averages out to a little more than a million square meters of PV needing replacement, per diem That's untenable imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Have you considered not burning hydrocarbons? Idk, seems pretty simple to me Okay, but what about besides that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 19:30
|
|
