The Climate thread

[bolverk 29394]

A couple new studies have come out providing yet further confirmation:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

Quote

 

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

*****

“There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.

*****

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.

*****

The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CPI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CPI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy.

*****

“As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus.”

 

As I'm making this post, it's just after 11pm in Paris and the temperature is still 92 degrees. Tomorrow, the forecast high is 108.

[old white guy 11]

On 7/18/2019 at 4:09 PM, Longhornmaniac8 said:

Speaking of terrific scientific minds, I'm still waiting for @mop to dazzle us with updates to his predictions from a few years about about sea ice extent.

No shit. And now he can't even look at the Antarctic for solace: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

[Hornius Emeritus 12408]

Alaska's glaciers are melting rapidly:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/record-heat-alaska-melts-glaciers-hints-bigger-problems-may-be-n1034766?cid=eml_mrd_20190726&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning Rundown July 26&utm_term=Morning Rundown

[gmr548 16481]

Lulz
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/to-help-save-the-planet-cut-back-to-a-hamburger-and-a-half-per-week

Why is that funny?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Brisketexan 104537]

On 7/24/2019 at 4:13 PM, bolverk said:

A couple new studies have come out providing yet further confirmation:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

As I'm making this post, it's just after 11pm in Paris and the temperature is still 92 degrees. Tomorrow, the forecast high is 108.

 

12 hours ago, old white guy said:

No shit. And now he can't even look at the Antarctic for solace: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

 

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Alaska's glaciers are melting rapidly:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/record-heat-alaska-melts-glaciers-hints-bigger-problems-may-be-n1034766?cid=eml_mrd_20190726&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning Rundown July 26&utm_term=Morning Rundown

Yet the current admin and its sycophants flat-out deny it all.

It's fucking infuriating on every level -- in its stupidity, its greed, its folly.....

[Biff Tannen 45491]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

 

Yet the current admin and its sycophants flat-out deny it all.

It's fucking infuriating on every level -- in its stupidity, its greed, its folly.....

I'm coming around to think this is necessary.  This is the beginning of the purge.  

[SubliminalHorn 6672]

12 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Why is that funny?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

You libtard. We should eat as many hamburders as we want since it’s a free country. Love it or leave it. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

If they hadn't made it a political issue, which it shouldn't be, we'd likely have a lot cooperation and good faith efforts to address this problem.

Instead of arguing about the sincerity of the scientific community, we would likely have neighborhoods working on increasing greenery; cities and states focusing resources on reducing cars and car emissions; and nations finding common ground for the common good.

But no. We have the American GOP whom we've put in charge. We have division, confusion, and lies. We can't discuss actions to take because of the disingenuous denial of the problem.

Dealing with huge problems should not divide people and resources. Any decent manager or leader knows that.

But decency is long gone around this sewer.

[Brisketexan 104537]

41 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

If they hadn't made it a political issue, which it shouldn't be, we'd likely have a lot cooperation and good faith efforts to address this problem.

Instead of arguing about the sincerity of the scientific community, we would likely have neighborhoods working on increasing greenery; cities and states focusing resources on reducing cars and car emissions; and nations finding common ground for the common good.

But no. We have the American GOP whom we've put in charge. We have division, confusion, and lies. We can't discuss actions to take because of the disingenuous denial of the problem.

Dealing with huge problems should not divide people and resources. Any decent manager or leader knows that.

But decency is long gone around this sewer.

Exactly -- in a sane world, we'd be talking about HOW we can solve this problem.  We'd be working on coordinated efforts by individual citizens, private groups, businesses, and governments.

Instead, we are being run by a cadre that has cemented their heads in the sand, and insist that there's no problem at all, so we're largely stuck at the starting gate when the race has been underway without us for years.  Fucking stupidity -- and ultimately, evil -- of the highest order.

[Lurch 5921]

An ExxonMobil commercial told me so

[Dahobbs 17420]

51 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Millions of people, many of them in the US, are talking about how we can solve this problem.  There are new technologies being developed and ongoing research into this problem happening right now in the united states.  We are not stuck at the starting gate. The US is currently and will continue to be among the global leaders in green energy. 

So, because private individuals recognize the importance of climate change,  the government's refusal to acknowledge the problem and its attempts to actually impede any solutions aren't an issue?

People in the US may be among the global leaders in green energy. The US, as a sovereign entity, is not. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Millions of people, many of them in the US, are talking about how we can solve this problem.  There are new technologies being developed and ongoing research into this problem happening right now in the united states.  We are not stuck at the starting gate. The US is currently and will continue to be among the global leaders in green energy. 

We are doing so IN SPITE of our leadership and government, not because of it.  That's the problem.  We have several horses pulling the sled in one direction, and one horse digging its hooves in, slowing us WAY the fuck down.  That's my point, dude.

[Trey3216 15325]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We are doing so IN SPITE of our leadership and government, not because of it.  That's the problem.  We have several horses pulling the sled in one direction, and one horse digging its hooves in, slowing us WAY the fuck down.  That's my point, dude.

Fair enough.  But the several horses will enable other horses, and we’ll build economies in businesses that make money making things better.   Then, economies of scale will begin to be realized, and improve upon it as well.  

[Dahobbs 17420]

8 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The country is more than the person currently & temporarily leading the executive branch.  What I said is true; the US is among the global leaders in green technology.  A contributing component to this is the support provided by US government, both currently and over the previous decades.  I'm currently working on a large carbon capture project (and other emissions such as SOx and NOx) for large (over 1 GW) fossil fuel plants.  This project was commissioned by the Department of Energy and is based on a process developed by a US company and is being supported by a major US energy provider.  There are currently and have been many studies & projects of the type.  The DOE was involved in the united states current role as a pioneer and one of the leading technology providers in solar energy.  One of the largest solar power technology providers in the world, a company which achieved many industry milestones and breakthroughs, is a US based company.  There are many other such stories that could be given.  But the bottom line is that the US as a country, which includes it professionals, local industries, and companies, is a global leader in green energy technology, and the US government has played and continues to play a significant role in this.

 

Seriously, you're just being obtuse. Answer the question: do you think the government's current denial of the problem is a problem? Yes or no? 

My answer: hell yes it is. All that you said is great and grand. And none of it is enough. The US government should be the leader on addressing climate change. The only thing it is leading right now is an anti-science movement. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Biff Tannen 45491]

If I grant you that the US is the current global leader in green energy technology, which I'm reluctant to without evidence, but ok, then I will caveat that by saying that we will soon be surpassed if we don't right this ship in 2020 at the ballot box.  All large technological innovations are spurred by government subsidy or at least broad support and our government is going the complete opposite direction at the worst possible time.

[Brisketexan 104537]

16 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The president does many, many stupid things.  It would be better if he was overtly supportive of green energy.  There are a few ways the president can support green energy.  One is through publicly supporting it, another is through creating tax incentives or subsidies, and the third is through protecting emerging technology providers.  He is certainly not doing the first two things.  He is somewhat doing the third (though inadvertently for green technology) in his dealings with China, the unrivaled IP thieves on the planet. 

It's not just the president.  Not even close.  It is the entire party in charge of our government -- the GOP.  And they have been throwing up roadblocks and actively attacking any efforts to mitigate climate change for YEARS.  If you don't think that has been a HUGE drag on our path to mitigating climate change, I have a bridge filled with unicorns to sell you.

Look at where we are.

Understand that it's woefully short of where we need to be.

Now imagine where we would be if the machinery of our government wasn't actively FIGHTING AGAINST US.

[Trey3216 15325]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If I grant you that the US is the current global leader in green energy technology, which I'm reluctant to without evidence, but ok, then I will caveat that by saying that we will soon be surpassed if we don't right this ship in 2020 at the ballot box.  All large technological innovations are spurred by government subsidy or at least broad support and our government is going the complete opposite direction at the worst possible time.

That's a pretty big reach that "all" large innovations are spurred by government subsidy.  Realllllllly big reach. Most of them are reached via 'first there' patent protections.  Others are there via deconstructing the patented idea and finding a more economical workaround way of doing it resulting in a second patent.  

[Trey3216 15325]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's not just the president.  Not even close.  It is the entire party in charge of our government -- the GOP.  And they have been throwing up roadblocks and actively attacking any efforts to mitigate climate change for YEARS.  If you don't think that has been a HUGE drag on our path to mitigating climate change, I have a bridge filled with unicorns to sell you.

Look at where we are.

Understand that it's woefully short of where we need to be.

Now imagine where we would be if the machinery of our government wasn't actively FIGHTING AGAINST US.

We've had carburetors that could get 70 mpg since the 70's and early 80's.  Why don't we use them?  There's been every version of political 'force' in power since then.  So how do we resolve this problem? 

Is economic warfare by way of painful taxation the way to go?  Is allowing market forces work their way through the system the way to go?  We're seeing right now in the the E&P stock prices that even with fairly stable prices in profitable ranges that they are getting absolutely slaughtered because of their debt ratios.  

We're seeing solar and water recycling companies starting to make money.  

Where does it end?  We likely get to where we want to be faster by letting the market dynamics play out than forcing a country of 360mm people to all begin taking massive haircuts by way of coercive taxation on items they purchase, coercive improvements on houses many can barely afford, and coercive enforcement on the companies they work for that will result in 10% or more of the workforce being scuttled.  

 

That's where I'm at.  I think we need to do better on a lot of fronts.  I've got  a lot of ideas and am working on one right now that will both make me money and solve some problems as well.  But I guess I'm just a conservative, non-believer who wants to ruin the world in some folks' eyes.  

 

And though I quoted you, this isn't specifically directed at you, but I was replying to your thought on the basis of bouncing ideas.  

Edited July 26, 2019 by Trey3216

[elfenix 34169]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If they hadn't made it a political issue, which it shouldn't be, we'd likely have a lot cooperation and good faith efforts to address this problem.

Instead of arguing about the sincerity of the scientific community, we would likely have neighborhoods working on increasing greenery; cities and states focusing resources on reducing cars and car emissions; and nations finding common ground for the common good.

But no. We have the American GOP whom we've put in charge. We have division, confusion, and lies. We can't discuss actions to take because of the disingenuous denial of the problem.

Dealing with huge problems should not divide people and resources. Any decent manager or leader knows that.

But decency is long gone around this sewer.

thanks, API!

[RomaVicta 29769]

I will stop crabbing to salute those who are doing something about this gathering disaster in spite of resistance from an anti-science party in control.

I will grant some confidence in the marketplace to help with this, but an awful lot of good was done by the Obama subsidy program that Trump, I believe, destroyed. The GOP and their media pals focused on one case of corruption to cripple the program. That's wicked.

I have no doubt that many easy and beautifying steps that could be taken to restore trees and other plants to urban landscapes to cool them down have been scoffed out of consideration by local versions of these same GOPs. Nobody wants to be an environmental wacko working for George Soros and the Clintons to destroy our country by running around planting trees like some goofball.

It's not just the president by a long shot. That said, he is the prominent bubo in this disgusting plague, he is not the disease itself. The disease is the hate and ignorance engine created to keep GOP pustules calling the shots.

 

Edit: I guess I lied about the crabbing. A little over a month until the first game!

Edited July 26, 2019 by RomaVicta
Brief flash of self awareness

[elfenix 34169]

24 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

We likely get to where we want to be faster by letting the market dynamics play out than forcing a country of 360mm people to all begin taking massive haircuts by way of coercive taxation on items they purchase, coercive improvements on houses many can barely afford, and coercive enforcement on the companies they work for that will result in 10% or more of the workforce being scuttled.  

this is complete and utter bullshit.  we'd have been where we needed to be a decades ago had we started implementing government policies back when scientists started figuring this shit out in the 40s and 50s.  we'd be where we need to be if we'd have started implementing government policies back when the pols at the top first started talking about it over 50 years ago.  instead we've let the market forces at exxon and friends in the fossil fuel industry gaslight the fuck out of us to the point where 40% of the population thinks the problem is a fucking chinese hoax.  so now we need much more draconian efforts because we've been letting the market play out. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by elfenix

[Trey3216 15325]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

this is complete and utter bullshit.  we'd have been where we needed to be a decades ago had we started implementing government policies back when scientists started figuring this shit out in the 40s and 50s.  we'd be where we need to be if we'd have started implementing government policies back when the pols at the top first started talking about it over 50 years ago.  instead we've let the market forces at exxon and friends in the fossil fuel industry gaslight the fuck out of us to the point where 40% of the population thinks the problem is a fucking chinese hoax.  so now we need much more draconian efforts because we've been letting the market play out. 

There's other things at bay here.  I've listed them out before on TOS, I'll take some time to do so again. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm not being obtuse.  We are discussing different aspects of the topic and you would like to focus on the thing you are interested in.   I could respond to you -  answer my question: do you think the US is a global leader in green energy technology?

I did. Let me repeat myself:

"People in the US may be among the global leaders in green energy. The US, as a sovereign entity, is not."

[Post Oak 20182]

Here's a CBS News Doc coming out about climate change in middle America

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/climate-reckoning-in-the-heartland-cbsn-originals/

 

This Sunday at 8pm

[elfenix 34169]

2 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

do you think the US is a global leader in green energy technology?

no.  we'd need to be leading at something green energy to be a global leader.  as far as i can tell, we're not a leader at wind turbine manufacturing, wind turbine capacity, PV production, PV capacity (as recently as 2016 we were behind japan, which has shit for sun, in PV installation), or non-PV solar. 

we have 1/3 the installed PV of china, half the installed PV of europe (which, like japan, has shit for sun), and added less PV than india (and less than 25% of china's addition) last year.

we have about half the installed wind of europe, well less than half the installed wind of china, added less wind than europe last year, and added about 1/3 of what china did last year.

the only thing we're close to the world leader at is concentrated solar, but that's a two horse race and we're losing (to spain). 

plug in electric cars?  getting our asses kicked by china, again.  in production, in total numbers, and as a percentage of the fleet.

in every measure except wind turbines china is the global leader in green energy tech.  there's a shit load of german companies doing wind turbines, though that data is several years old so i wouldn't be shocked if it's china now. 

 

to go back to the well, it's a 3 horse race between the US, china, and the EU, and we're dragging at the rear. 

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by elfenix

[Trey3216 15325]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no.  we'd need to be leading at something green energy to be a global leader.  as far as i can tell, we're not a leader at wind turbine manufacturing, wind turbine capacity, PV production, PV capacity (as recently as 2016 we were behind japan, which has shit for sun, in PV installation), or non-PV solar. 

we have 1/3 the installed PV of china, half the installed PV of europe (which, like japan, has shit for sun), and added less PV than india (and less than 25% of china's addition) last year.

we have about half the installed wind of europe, well less than half the installed wind of china, added less wind than europe last year, and added about 1/3 of what china did last year.

the only thing we're close to the world leader at is concentrated solar, but that's a two horse race and we're losing (to spain). 

plug in electric cars?  getting our asses kicked by china, again.  in production, in total numbers, and as a percentage of the fleet.

in every measure except wind turbines china is the global leader in green energy tech.  there's a shit load of german companies doing wind turbines, though that data is several years old so i wouldn't be shocked if it's china now. 

 

to go back to the well, it's a 3 horse race between the US, china, and the EU, and we're dragging at the rear. 

 

Plug in electric cars are an uphill battle we'll always lose.  China owns about 90% of the minerals necessary to make the necessary parts to roll plug ins.  

Not to mention that making plug in, battery powered vehicles are more dangerous to the environment than the standard gas powered vehicle.  The energy usage to unearth the metals needed, the damage done to the environment due to the volatile and harming nature of those metals, and the thin line of electric generation and transmission capacity in some areas makes electric vehicles close to unfeasible and nearly untenable.  

 

 

[elfenix 34169]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Plug in electric cars are an uphill battle we'll always lose.  China owns about 90% of the minerals necessary to make the necessary parts to roll plug ins.  

so what you're saying is that we're not a leader.  thanks for the assist.

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

8 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You expect the sovereign entity itself to develop the technology?  When you here a statement such as "Germany is the leader in wind turbine technology," are you under the impression that it is German state officials who have developed this technology and not Enercon and Siemens?  

Seriously, stop being pedantic. I agree that the people of the United States are among the leaders in developing and using renewable technology. Of course, that leadership was in past years assisted/encouraged by a government that took the threat of climate change seriously. While its actions weren't as drastic as I what I would have preferred, they were at least steps in the right direction. The US Government, as it currently stands and not as a past incarnation, is not a leader in anything climate related other than denial. Apparently you find this fact unimportant. 

P.S. Sovereign entities develop and own technology all the time. So, yes. I believe that the US government could and should fund and develop technology to address climate change. 

[elfenix 34169]

14 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You say that we are not a global leader, yet also according to you we are one of three horses in a three horse race.   

last isn't leading.  don't know what's hard about that. 

 

14 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

As for your analysis, you rely heavily on installed numbers, but installation of technology and technology development are different things.  As for PV panels, the leading technology provider is SunPower, an American company:

as dahobbs pointed out, an american may be a leader.  the united states, though, sure as fuck ain't. 

 

15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You expect the sovereign entity itself to develop the technology? 

that's been the case for a shit load of technology over the eons.  don't know why we suddenly expect to change course now, and for green tech in particular.

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Plug in electric cars are an uphill battle we'll always lose.  China owns about 90% of the minerals necessary to make the necessary parts to roll plug ins.  

Not to mention that making plug in, battery powered vehicles are more dangerous to the environment than the standard gas powered vehicle.  The energy usage to unearth the metals needed, the damage done to the environment due to the volatile and harming nature of those metals, and the thin line of electric generation and transmission capacity in some areas makes electric vehicles close to unfeasible and nearly untenable.  

 

 

Which means we should be utilizing more LNG powered cars, amirite?

[Lurch 5921]

[EuroHorn 3204]

Meanwhile China and India just threw another lump of coal into the boiler...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

 

[Brisketexan 104537]

56 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

Do you have any idea how much damage the democratic party and their progressive supporters & associates have done to the environment with their absolutely ridiculous initiatives and policies over the last several decades, initiatives that continue to this day?  What the world needs is safe, reliable, on demand large centralized power plants that produce no carbon and other greenhouse gases.  As it happens, the world has had technology like that for many decades now in nuclear power plants.  Who do you think halted the expansion of the nuclear industry?  Many current democrat examples could be given that continue today with these initiatives.  Tom Steyer is anti nuclear and "bankrolled an Arizona ballot initiative that would prematurely close the state’s sole nuclear plant."  He also has large investments in non-nuclear renewables (and also coal and natural gas).  Strange coincidence.  There are many other current leading democrats who oppose nuclear energy, e.g. Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey.

Also, democrats now oppose natural gas, which produces only half the CO2 emissions that coal does for a given power output.  Right now, the world has two well proven and reliable on demand power sources that can replace coal, one that has zero greenhouse emissions and another that cuts the emissions in half compared to coal.  The democrats oppose them both.  They even use fear mongering and pseudoscience to achieve these goals, just like the GOP.  Millions and millions of tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere and will continue to be released for the foreseeable future because of the actions of democrats and their progressive supporters.  We could replace coal completely within the next couple of decades with nuclear and natural gas plants, but that won't happen in part because of resistance by democrats.  Imagine where we would be without republicans or democrats.  

 

 

You may be looking for me to argue with you.  Prepare to be disappointed.  

I strongly believe that a long-term strategy that 1) uses natural gas as a readily available and less-harmful bridge and 2) uses nuclear energy where appropriate (and this concept starts with re-invigorating western nuclear generation technology - the world is pretty much down to just Russian technology, and....that's not great).

There should be a kabillion facets to the strategy -- from how we develop cities and their transportation infrastructure, how we build new buildings, and how we generate power, and a kabillion other things.  But they all must START from a foundation of "carbon emissions are hurting our climate, and we need to put in an enormous multi-disciplinary and multi-actor effort to reduce them."  The GOP won't even cooperate with that starting premise.  In the name of....shit, it's not even all economic greed, a good bit is just "fuck you" stubborn idiocy.....they are actively fighting AGAINST any strategy to solve a problem.

If you want me to argue with you about the warts that the Dems bring to the table, sorry to disappoint.  But for fuck's sake, the GOP doesn't even acknowledge that there IS a table.  It's insanity, and it doesn't even have a decent point behind it.

[gmr548 16481]

"The Democrats are the real problem because they insist on solving the problem instead of temporary, insufficient measures." - @Axiom of Choice, totally NOT a partisan hack

Edited July 28, 2019 by gmr548

[Brisketexan 104537]

21 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Currently many in the GOP do not acknowledge the problem.  That has not always been the case.  George W Bush said in his 2007 state of the union speech that "global climate change is a 'serious challenge' that should be addressed through technology."  He also "asked U.S. lawmakers to 'join me in pursuing a great goal' of reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent."  His administration also "prepared a plan to expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad."  If you actually want Gen IV nuclear reactors developed and installed in the US, then you are going to disappointed when the pendulum swings and the democrats are in control; they will actively block such progress because it suits their interests to do so.  Most people on the internet who are now terribly concerned about the environment and all the carbon being released will not even know that they are committing such atrocities, as long as the political leaders speak the way we would like them to and mention their concern from time to time; in lieu of actual solutions, we will get headlines with additional wind and solar farms that do not significantly increase our on demand base load power supply and we will marvel at the progress.  

As opposed to not only nothing, but actual OPPOSITION, and a promise to go back to coal, from the current iteration of the GOP (an iteration that brooks no dissent, by the way).

But you're right, both parties are the same and whatnot.

[elfenix 34169]

a) looks like most gen iv nuclear reactor types aren't even ready to start commercial construction, and they probably wouldn't be online in any appreciable number for another couple decades after that

b) no one, R or D, wants a nuke plant nearby.  no one.  NIMBYs rule this conversation (and since they're out in the sticks, it's mostly R nearby)

c) even fewer people, R, D, libertarian, green, sovereign citizen, follower of xenu, etc., wants long term nuclear waste storage nearby

d) the only nuke plant under expansion in the US, vogtle, for which the obama administration extended billions in loan guarantees, has been under construction for 10 years next month, is 5 years (at best) behind schedule, and bankrupted westinghouse electric.  for cost comparison, these reactors are coming in at about $10 million per megawatt ($25 billion/ 2.5 jiggawatts).  a wind turbine farm is about $2 million per megawatt. 

but yeah, it's all the democrats' fault we don't have a fleet of gen iv reactors powering the country.

Edited July 28, 2019 by elfenix

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The diseases of Ebola and the Flu are not the same in how they affect people.  They are terrible in different ways. 

I put this in terms that show how nonsensical your bullshit equivalency is.

Yeah, they are "terrible in different ways."  But one of them is a straight-up killer with a very high mortality rate; the other is still miserable and even dangerous, but at a much lower mortality rate.

If I had a chance to choose a disease, I'd pick the flu and work on getting better over Ebola 100% of the time.

If I have a chance to choose a political group to deal with climate change, I'm picking the Dems over the GOP 100% of the time.  That doesn't mean that I'll love everything the Dems do -- some of it will actually make me sick.  But it's a shit-ton better than the alternative.

Did the concepts of "degree," "volume," and "amount" die recently?  Because I hear idiocy like this whenever anyone discusses, say, presidential lying, or how we can deal with climate change, and, shit, practically everything.  

Give me someone who lies once a day versus someone who lies 10 times a day.

Give me someone who occasionally says something mean, as opposed to someone who engages in purposeful cruelty every fucking day.

Give me the flu instead of Ebola.

Give me a political leadership that actually believes a problem exists, and we should do something to try to solve it, over one that fucking denies the problem even exists and is working to bring back coal-fired electric generation.

Fuck this stupid fucking shit.

 

[berlinerbaer 670]

On 7/26/2019 at 2:16 PM, Brisketexan said:

It's not just the president.  Not even close.  It is the entire party in charge of our government -- the GOP.  And they have been throwing up roadblocks and actively attacking any efforts to mitigate climate change for YEARS.  If you don't think that has been a HUGE drag on our path to mitigating climate change, I have a bridge filled with unicorns to sell you.

Look at where we are.

Understand that it's woefully short of where we need to be.

Now imagine where we would be if the machinery of our government wasn't actively FIGHTING AGAINST US.

I'm heartened that politics is being taken out of the issue, slowly but surely. We have Texas, a red state, leading the way and communities like Georgetown going 100% renewables. State and local governments are taking the lead. California alone deserves credit for getting automakers to adopt its standards as the de-facto national standard, for example.

I'll go on record to say that climate change denialism will be politically untenable at the national scale in ten years. It will be one of the things the GOP will try to sweep under the rug.

It's certainly true that we'd be well on our way to fixing our growing climate calamity if it were not for the GOP's bullshit. Instead, our great grandchildren will be perplexed at why we let it get so bad, and they'll shudder to think how close we came to absolute disaster before things got better.

 

6 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

Do you have any idea how much damage the democratic party and their progressive supporters & associates have done to the environment with their absolutely ridiculous initiatives and policies over the last several decades, initiatives that continue to this day?  What the world needs is safe, reliable, on demand large centralized power plants that produce no carbon and other greenhouse gases.  As it happens, the world has had technology like that for many decades now in nuclear power plants.  Who do you think halted the expansion of the nuclear industry?  Many current democrat examples could be given that continue today with these initiatives.  Tom Steyer is anti nuclear and "bankrolled an Arizona ballot initiative that would prematurely close the state’s sole nuclear plant."  He also has large investments in non-nuclear renewables (and also coal and natural gas).  Strange coincidence.  There are many other current leading democrats who oppose nuclear energy, e.g. Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey.

Also, democrats now oppose natural gas, which produces only half the CO2 emissions that coal does for a given power output.  Right now, the world has two well proven and reliable on demand power sources that can replace coal, one that has zero greenhouse emissions and another that cuts the emissions in half compared to coal.  The democrats oppose them both.  They even use fear mongering and pseudoscience to achieve these goals, just like the GOP.  Millions and millions of tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere and will continue to be released for the foreseeable future because of the actions of democrats and their progressive supporters.  We could replace coal completely within the next couple of decades with nuclear and natural gas plants, but that won't happen in part because of resistance by democrats.  Imagine where we would be without republicans or democrats.  

 

 

You should have picked a state that wasn't drowning in sunlight as your example. So regular is the sun in Arizona, that even Li ion battery technology at today's prices would be all that is needed to keep the grid load constant.

Seriously, bro, Arizona has no need whatsoever for nuclear power.

Your anti-nuclear conspiracy argument is rich when one considers that no other source of energy has received close to as many handouts over the past 5 decades. Nukes are a massive investment. Half of them wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government's strange obsession with too-big-to-fail boondoggles. I was greatly intrigued by the thorium fuel cycle just a few years ago but I've since seen prices for non-nuclear renewables and battery technology fall at such a rate to convince me that's where the money should go.

 

[EuroHorn 3204]

12 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

I'm heartened that politics is being taken out of the issue, slowly but surely. We have Texas, a red state, leading the way and communities like Georgetown going 100% renewables. State and local governments are taking the lead. California alone deserves credit for getting automakers to adopt its standards as the de-facto national standard, for example.

I'll go on record to say that climate change denialism will be politically untenable at the national scale in ten years. It will be one of the things the GOP will try to sweep under the rug.

It's certainly true that we'd be well on our way to fixing our growing climate calamity if it were not for the GOP's bullshit. Instead, our great grandchildren will be perplexed at why we let it get so bad, and they'll shudder to think how close we came to absolute disaster before things got better.

 

You should have picked a state that wasn't drowning in sunlight as your example. So regular is the sun in Arizona, that even Li ion battery technology at today's prices would be all that is needed to keep the grid load constant.

Seriously, bro, Arizona has no need whatsoever for nuclear power.

Your anti-nuclear conspiracy argument is rich when one considers that no other source of energy has received close to as many handouts over the past 5 decades. Nukes are a massive investment. Half of them wouldn't exist if it weren't for our government's strange obsession with too-big-to-fail boondoggles. I was greatly intrigued by the thorium fuel cycle just a few years ago but I've since seen prices for non-nuclear renewables and battery technology fall at such a rate to convince me that's where the money should go.

 

Yea, Georgetown...

 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190223/why-georgetowns-green-energy-gamble-didnt-pay-off

Quote

Some energy experts say the “100 percent renewable” claims essentially amount to public relations spin: With wind blowing and sun shining intermittently, any retail electric company has to buy power from baseload sources such as coal, natural gas or nuclear.

The city justified the use of the 100 percent renewable slogan because it bought enough power from wind and solar power — from the Spinning Spur 3 wind farm owned by EDF Renewable Energy 50 miles west of Amarillo and from Clearway Energy’s solar farm in Fort Stockton — to cover the city’s electricity usage. On paper, at least.

City officials recently acknowledged that the natural gas contract they had with Mercuria represented 23 percent of the energy the city had contracted for in 2018.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by EuroHorn

[gmr548 16481]

13 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

 

I'll go on record to say that climate change denialism will be politically untenable at the national scale in ten years. It will be one of the things the GOP will try to sweep under the rug.

 

*sigh*

And it will be too late.

[gmr548 16481]

3 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Yea, Georgetown...

 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190223/why-georgetowns-green-energy-gamble-didnt-pay-off

 

Your counterargument to that post is that Georgetown is actually 77 percent renewable-powered, not 100 percent. Your intellect is astounding. We are not worthy. You should leave us peasants and join the esteemed scholars at TexAgs.

[EuroHorn 3204]

10 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Your counterargument to that post is that Georgetown is actually 77 percent renewable-powered, not 100 percent. Your intellect is astounding. We are not worthy. You should leave us peasants and join the esteemed scholars at TexAgs.

They purchased power via purchased power contracts.  Way more than they consumed. That 77% represents what they contracted

[elfenix 34169]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Also, its gigawatts, not "jiggawatts."    

Edited July 29, 2019 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45491]

On 7/28/2019 at 10:51 PM, Axiom of Choice said:

Also, its gigawatts, not "jiggawatts."        

You must be a blast at parties.

Also, I think something that is absolutely jaw dropping to think about is that we have governments and politicians now that are ACTIVELY against the environment.  It could be argued that in the past we had people who were simply ignorant, didn't believe the science, or just plain didn't understand why the environment was important.  Now we have people around the world that are PURPOSELY going against it.  Look at Bolsonaro in Brazil.  He wants to privatize and clear cut the entire Amazon.  Dotard and his cronies are trying to open the Arctic to every environmental rape imaginable.  

I can't think of something more brazen than actively going against the interests of all human beings on the planet for short term profit.

[Lurch 5921]

Interesting article on the scalability of nuclear power
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.amp

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

I thought it was "jiggy watts"

[elfenix 34169]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Based on his other posts on energy, it's plausible he didn't know the actual unit and I thought it was worth taking five seconds to highlight.   

far more likely you're a libyan terrorist

Edited August 1, 2019 by elfenix

[Lurch 5921]

What a terrible article.  Who says we need 15 TW of nuclear power?  Number one goal is to get off coal and crude oil for power gen as quick as possible.  Nuclear can help us do that.  So can wind, solar, and many other power sources.  Looking at any one isolated source and saying "this one source just can't supply the world's entire energy needs" is worthless analysis.  Also, the author makes numerous beyond ridiculous extrapolations taking the worst elements of old technology and using that as the basis to make his points.  It would be like giving safety and reliability records of airplanes and cars designed in the 1950s to calculate reliability and safety numbers for transportation in the 21st century.  His analysis says that if we assume the worst elements of old designs, construction costs and rates in the declined industry, and disregard new developments in technology or any other things that would actually apply,  then nuclear can't be mankind's sole power source.  Just worthless through and through.  

I see you didn’t read it all.

[elfenix 34169]

10 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You've seen wind farms stretching to the horizon and thought to yourself "that's about how big a nuclear plant would be."  That is much more baffling than someone thinking the unit is spelled jiggawatt.  

 i made the pop culture reference, and you poorly responded to it (sunday at 11:51 pm), well before i did math using a source that gave incorrect information* (monday at 2:21 pm).  so i guess you're actually marty mcfly. 

 

 

 

 

*or maybe the source was about footprints.  who knows.  still not the size of connecticut. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45491]

God dammit Axiom.  Your homework this weekend is to go watch Back to the Future.  Jesus Christ.