The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!
Blackhawk1313
Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered User regular
Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered User regular
Climate change is real everyone. This has been my obvious statement for the day that continues to be prominently denied by people that could actually effect policy change to mitigate it.
When we left off, discussions of EVs were moving along briskly and also melting ice caps are going to make Asia very interesting (read: destabilized) this century.
This thread ostensibly is for the discussion of climate change, its causes, its effects, and what can be done to mitigate it. This thread is not for politics unless explicitly referring to climate-centric policies and legislation.
Onward.
When we left off, discussions of EVs were moving along briskly and also melting ice caps are going to make Asia very interesting (read: destabilized) this century.
This thread ostensibly is for the discussion of climate change, its causes, its effects, and what can be done to mitigate it. This thread is not for politics unless explicitly referring to climate-centric policies and legislation.
Onward.
Blackhawk1313 on
+1
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
(the actual journal article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0393-5 )
basically a lot of lakes won't freeze anymore which will be bad for a lot of things ecologically (mm algae blooms)
Not a lot. Nothing that really stuck, but godsdamn.
I live in Richmond, basically on the bay, and there was snow in my garden and on my car.
Same, but with an ice storm probably closing school AGAIN tomorrow.
(We're all fucked, aren't we?)
I assume it's an "ask for the moon" start to a conversation.
We'll pay for it the same way we paid for the First New Deal and every goddanged war after that.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I prefer if they shoot higher than what you would settle for. Better to do that than precompromise like what was happening in the obama era a lot. It is the opening of the negotiation.
Can't find the point in the linked article because of the paywall.
I hope its not more of well this doesn't do enough so why bother. Every bit helps from where we are now.
Yup same here up to half an inch of ice predicted all schools closed. We are just in the blender of random bad winter crap as we bounce up and down from above freezing to well below it.
Exactly ask for the moon and push the conversation back the other direction. You won't get it all but if you start "reasonable" you wind up where we are at now.
AOC even says that she knows it won't pass, the point is that we start talking about it now so when Democrats cut the legs out from under Republicans and get control again we are ready to push for actual change
Nuclear in the US has proven unable to build out in a timely fashion. It's not competitive with renewables.
Renewables don't offset emissions. They replace them. So unless you're talking like using solar power to make artificial oil or something I'm not sure how that makes sense.
And carbon capture has been a disappointment so far.
Climeworks I believe already has a dollar per CO2 ton schedule available for their capture process.
That’s the part of this, coming from AOC, that is most promising. Hell fucking yes MFA is a part of a Green Deal, for like 19 great reasons.
You can't net-zero with renewable offsetting. You can move the numbers around all you want, but if something is being burned you are not net zero unless that is later removed.
Its probably the radiation
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
That's a big chunk of why. There is a fair amount of scare mongering around the issue as well but US nuclear plants are giant money pits.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I believe your mistaken on your use of terminology. All a facility needs to do to be considered net zero is to offset the energy it intakes with renewable energy sources to the point that it produces as much energy for the grid as it uses.
At least that's how Dream, who designs net zero buildings, describes it to me. Though I'll admit she's probably dumbing it down for me cause HVAC engineering is kinda boring.
The costs for nuclear power are inflated abit because we build so few of them and we use such outdated technology that the safety protocols that are required are expensive. But even after the investment it's still cheaper than the rest straight out.
The upfront costs are massive but we don't really have a lot of choice anymore, our planet is becoming uninhabitable for us.
A big part of that is probably that everyone stopped building nuclear for so long the expertise went and did other things, or retired.
And of course it suffers from massive NIMBY, especially with bad press like Fukushima.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I don't know that it's untenable in general, but the US industry seems bad at their jobs.
Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.
There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.
This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.
Most waste can already be used as fuel, we just don’t. Partly because it isn’t currently cost-competative with using non-recycled fuel, partly because we don’t want everyone in the world building fuel recycling breeder reactors because they can easily be converted to nuclear weapons production.
We should be building solar in areas like texas and arizona though, we need to get off of fossil fuels even without the impending doom of global warming.
...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.
Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.
And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..