Disaster World temperature heading towards 3C - The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Thread theme.
BBC Coverage|Archive of BBC Coverage

Please read the full article at either of the above links.

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".
It will be hugely expensive - but the window of opportunity remains open.
After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.
Click to expand...
 
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. What we have to do to save the planet is give more and more control of our lives and choices to a narrow group of elites in the government, based upon "science" that can't even predict current trends with any sort of accuracy.

That same group of elites, to give this some context, just attempted to destroy the life and career of a man because he happened to be nominated to a government office and they didn't like the man who nominated him.

Said group of elites is supported by a worryingly large group of people who routinely call for the death of people like me, and they often cater to this group of people.

What I'm thinking is, if the planet heats up, my life will still go on; but if I give these elites any more power over me, I may find myself dangling from a tree (and it'd still be hotter outside). As I'm not mentally ill, I think I'm going to choose investing in short-sleeved shirts.
 
Wasn't NYC supposed to be under 12' of water as of 2015? That's what they told me would happen in 2000.

Anyways the reason global warming denialism is high is because politicians burrowed deep in that shit and went full alarmism, making baseless predictions that never happened so they could get elected and fill their pockets. It turned a lot of people off from it when you have people at the UN using it as a means to bash the West while giving shitholes covered in perpetual fog and human waste a pass.
 
White bubblegum said:
(Sorry for double post, dont know how to quote on edited posts)
We don't necessarily need to dismantle capitalism. We just need to direct markets towards more sustainable energy sources/consumer products/etc. And being awarded millions of dollars by a big company/the government would be a great initiative for smaller companies to develop carbon trapping technology.
Also, consumers need to stop eating so much beef and choose to spend their money on sustainable products. We don't necessarily need communism.
Click to expand...
Ugh. That ill-defined "sustainable" word I hate. What the fuck does that even mean?

Plastics are sustainable. Beef is sustainable. Shitposting on the internet is sustainable. Everything is sustainable provided we have the energy to produce it. We can refine pretty much any material from common ore (rocks) if we had the energy to do it.

The reason people say things are "unsustainable" is because using fossil fuels for that energy is. Wind, water, solar are flawed and, at best, supplemental energy sources that can't make it work long term either. That is why we see the pants-shitting by the greenies because they painted themselves into a corner with their energy agenda.

They overlook one very big option. Really the only option going forward. Nuclear power.

14 trillion tons of Uranium in the oceans. Another 14 trillion precipitated into the seafloor. Considering how much energy we get out of fertile nuclear fuel in a breeder reactor the fuel becomes inexhaustable and we can recover it at ~$300/kg.

If we rolled out IFR or some other Gen IV technology to replace fossil fuels as an energy source all this bullshit goes away. It all becomes "sustainable". Shit, we could have it right now if they hadn't shuttered the program in the early 90's. It would have killed the golden goose for the environmental kooks and their dream of dismantling capitalism.
 
ColtWalker1847 said:
The reason people say things are "unsustainable" is because using fossil fuels for that energy is. Wind, water, solar are flawed and, at best, supplemental energy sources that can't make it work long term either. That is why we see the pants-shitting by the greenies because they painted themselves into a corner with their energy agenda.

They overlook one very big option. Really the only option going forward. Nuclear power.
Click to expand...

They don't overlook it. It's just that it's not nearly as efficient for money laundering as snake-oil methods.
 
ColtWalker1847 said:
Ugh. That ill-defined "sustainable" word I hate. What the fuck does that even mean?

Plastics are sustainable. Beef is sustainable. Shitposting on the internet is sustainable. Everything is sustainable provided we have the energy to produce it. We can refine pretty much any material from common ore (rocks) if we had the energy to do it.

The reason people say things are "unsustainable" is because using fossil fuels for that energy is. Wind, water, solar are flawed and, at best, supplemental energy sources that can't make it work long term either. That is why we see the pants-shitting by the greenies because they painted themselves into a corner with their energy agenda.

They overlook one very big option. Really the only option going forward. Nuclear power.

14 trillion tons of Uranium in the oceans. Another 14 trillion precipitated into the seafloor. Considering how much energy we get out of fertile nuclear fuel in a breeder reactor the fuel becomes inexhaustable and we can recover it at ~$300/kg.

If we rolled out IFR or some other Gen IV technology to replace fossil fuels as an energy source all this bullshit goes away. It all becomes "sustainable". Shit, we could have it right now if they hadn't shuttered the program in the early 90's. It would have killed the golden goose for the environmental kooks and their dream of dismantling capitalism.
Click to expand...
You know what we mean by sustainable- it's usually used to describe "greener" energy sources. "Greener" methods of agriculture.
 
Well then, that settles my decision to start learning how to grow my own food and survive on my own.
Innawoods here I come, motherfuckers.
 
White bubblegum said:
You know what we mean by sustainable- it's usually used to describe "greener" energy sources. "Greener" methods of agriculture.
Click to expand...
So a stupid buzzword that means nothing with even the slightest bit of scrutiny. As I thought.

How exactly is any of that alt-farming bullshit "greener" anyways? It is absolutely garbage from a land use and efficiency standpoint.

"Hey let's deforest this area so we can grow crops on it that we used to grow in Kansas at twice the yield, it's sustainable"

Put the koolaid down, son. You've been lied to.
 
Oy vey, it’s anuddah shoah!

I’d be inclined to say that alternative means of harvesting energy would be appropriate IF these fucks stopped beating around the bush and started weighing the green output of shit like solar panels against the negative output of having to manufacture said solar panels
 
White bubblegum said:
You know what we mean by sustainable- it's usually used to describe "greener" energy sources. "Greener" methods of agriculture.
Click to expand...

Every time someone brings up nuclear power, some jagoff brushes it off for not being green enough. We've put nuclear development on hold for decades waiting for the theoretical 'perfect' source of green energy to emerge. Wind turbines are a nuisance and solar is not practical. There is no perfect source of energy. You can either accept nuclear power or you can stick your head in the sand for another 30 years while we continue to burn coal and oil.
 
TL;DR: Rich fuckers gon move to a nice high mountain range while the rest of us all die.

Yey.
 
Spelling Bee said:
Well then, that settles my decision to start learning how to grow my own food and survive on my own.
Innawoods here I come, motherfuckers.
Click to expand...
Do not listen to this man. Because this poster is not a man at all. The (((hymenopteran))) menace wants global warming to happen to increase the growing season and the viable max size of their vile hives.
 
ColtWalker1847 said:
Ugh. That ill-defined "sustainable" word I hate. What the fuck does that even mean?

Plastics are sustainable. Beef is sustainable. Shitposting on the internet is sustainable. Everything is sustainable provided we have the energy to produce it. We can refine pretty much any material from common ore (rocks) if we had the energy to do it.

The reason people say things are "unsustainable" is because using fossil fuels for that energy is. Wind, water, solar are flawed and, at best, supplemental energy sources that can't make it work long term either. That is why we see the pants-shitting by the greenies because they painted themselves into a corner with their energy agenda.

They overlook one very big option. Really the only option going forward. Nuclear power.

14 trillion tons of Uranium in the oceans. Another 14 trillion precipitated into the seafloor. Considering how much energy we get out of fertile nuclear fuel in a breeder reactor the fuel becomes inexhaustable and we can recover it at ~$300/kg.

If we rolled out IFR or some other Gen IV technology to replace fossil fuels as an energy source all this bullshit goes away. It all becomes "sustainable". Shit, we could have it right now if they hadn't shuttered the program in the early 90's. It would have killed the golden goose for the environmental kooks and their dream of dismantling capitalism.
Click to expand...

I like nuclear power but nuclear plants are incredibly complex things that require the pinnacle of organization in a society. From procuring the fuel to processing it to running the reactor to storing the energy to transmitting it to finally storing the waste.

The new reactor designs are safe, but they are incredibly expensive and rely on an outdated centralized production of electricity (that natural gas has already taken over based on cost).

A solar sell or windmill is a relatively simple thing compared to a nuclear power plant, of any generation. The technology on solar panels is following a "moore's law" for efficiency, where it's doubling roughly ever two years. By 2030 you're going to be seeing panels so efficienct, cheap and durable that pretty much every new building will implement them in some way.

This is already happening with current tech across much of the south. Go to any new sub division and you'll see quite a few solar installs, mostly used for heating water. Works great and saves the homeowner a lot on their electricity every year.

The future of electricity is point production from solar + batteries. You're going to be selling electricity to your neighbors in some cases. This is also going to have the benefit of a more robust power grid, a decentralized one that doesn't rely on a series of long range transmissions.

Until that happens natural gas will continue to provide baseload and take more and more of that share over from expensive nuke plants.
 
thejackal said:
I like nuclear power but nuclear plants are incredibly complex things that require the pinnacle of organization in a society. From procuring the fuel to processing it to running the reactor to storing the energy to transmitting it to finally storing the waste.

The new reactor designs are safe, but they are incredibly expensive and rely on an outdated centralized production of electricity (that natural gas has already taken over based on cost).

A solar sell or windmill is a relatively simple thing compared to a nuclear power plant, of any generation. The technology on solar panels is following a "moore's law" for efficiency, where it's doubling roughly ever two years. By 2030 you're going to be seeing panels so efficienct, cheap and durable that pretty much every new building will implement them in some way.

This is already happening with current tech across much of the south. Go to any new sub division and you'll see quite a few solar installs, mostly used for heating water. Works great and saves the homeowner a lot on their electricity every year.

The future of electricity is point production from solar + batteries. You're going to be selling electricity to your neighbors in some cases. This is also going to have the benefit of a more robust power grid, a decentralized one that doesn't rely on a series of long range transmissions.

Until that happens natural gas will continue to provide baseload and take more and more of that share over from expensive nuke plants.
Click to expand...
Of course, first, we're going to have to deal with the existing power companies who will NOT take decentralization well at all.
 
They were saying all that about solar thirty years ago.

Also nuclear fusion is only 20 years away. Can scientists going all the way back to the 50's be wrong?
 
977F04DC-E0B0-46E7-B78A-AE88F624E8A0.jpeg


How slightly different are we talking? Are we talking fan-subbed anime “slightly” or Crunchyroll dubbed anime “slightly?
 
White bubblegum said:
(Sorry for double post, dont know how to quote on edited posts)
We don't necessarily need to dismantle capitalism. We just need to direct markets towards more sustainable energy sources/consumer products/etc. And being awarded millions of dollars by a big company/the government would be a great initiative for smaller companies to develop carbon trapping technology.
Also, consumers need to stop eating so much beef and choose to spend their money on sustainable products. We don't necessarily need communism.
Click to expand...
Steak is delicious.

"Stop eating beef" may have positive consequences for the environment, but rolling that industry back will also have negative effects, and efforts, programs, and money will have to be expended to retrain displaced workers (same as with the coal industry) or you're just fucking those people over and the whole "save humanity" moral high ground goes down the shitter.
 
thejackal said:
I like nuclear power but nuclear plants are incredibly complex things that require the pinnacle of organization in a society. From procuring the fuel to processing it to running the reactor to storing the energy to transmitting it to finally storing the waste.

The new reactor designs are safe, but they are incredibly expensive and rely on an outdated centralized production of electricity (that natural gas has already taken over based on cost).

A solar sell or windmill is a relatively simple thing compared to a nuclear power plant, of any generation. The technology on solar panels is following a "moore's law" for efficiency, where it's doubling roughly ever two years. By 2030 you're going to be seeing panels so efficienct, cheap and durable that pretty much every new building will implement them in some way.

This is already happening with current tech across much of the south. Go to any new sub division and you'll see quite a few solar installs, mostly used for heating water. Works great and saves the homeowner a lot on their electricity every year.

The future of electricity is point production from solar + batteries. You're going to be selling electricity to your neighbors in some cases. This is also going to have the benefit of a more robust power grid, a decentralized one that doesn't rely on a series of long range transmissions.

Until that happens natural gas will continue to provide baseload and take more and more of that share over from expensive nuke plants.
Click to expand...
...and what happens when Nucor wants to run their arc furnace at their steel mill at night?

The problem with renewables is that they only run at maybe 30% nameplate capacity. You then have to overbuild by 3-4 times then install a massive "battery" to make it work. What that battery is? Nobody knows. Then you have to built some kind of backup just in case there is some kind of weird weather event that stops generation for any length of time.

What you could do instead is build an IFR pool-type reactor that throttles up and down based on how quickly you remove heat (create power). This is known as "load-following". They did this at EBR II. This ain't your daddy's PWR that is pure baseload in some 1 GW installation that is ill suited to changes in output (ask the French). These things are smaller 100-250 mw units that can be air cooled removing the need to be near water.

A rollout of those will then remove the need for the massive redundancy, battery, and backup generation for grid stabilization with a lot of renewables in it. It is complementary technology.

Ok, so that takes care of electricity. But I was talking about energy as a whole which WWS does jack shit to address. We will need some replacement for Jet A, Bunker C, and #2 Diesel going forward. We are going to need heat and industrial steam for manufacturing and refining. We are going to have to replace the petroleum and gas we use as feedstocks.

Well, new nuclear has a solution there as well as it operates at higher temps. You could just build a straight thermal reactor (like FFTF) to drive a Sulfur-Iodine process to make hydrogen. Waste heat can make steam. You could also use it to make wood-gas and bio-oil out of wood chips and other wood waste.

There are a shitload of options if you have an energy source that throws out heat at 800 degrees C plus. Processes that we currently do with gas and coal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom