151–160 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you propose reducing the population to zero over the next twenty years? If not then you don't solve the problem.
If growth is as predicted in India and Africa (for example), then even the most extreme penitent self-flagellation in the developed world will not make a blind bit of difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The science of what is happening is fact. The method by which we engage our collective powers to act is a people problem. We can come together in action, but that requires connecting with as many of our personalities and psyches as possible.
There aren’t good solutions yet. That’s a cold hard fact. Reducing emission isn’t going to help and it’s not a start. It’s a losers battle. We need carbon sequestering tech, fusion, and new tech to solve this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do though. Why should we stunt the developing world's growth just because we've already fucked things up too much? Seems like colonialism all over; the West gets to keep polluting, but the developing world must stop developing?
If "stunting developing world growth" is too much of a cost to endure for your cause, then this isn't a WW2 level emergency. In WW2, the US deemed the ends to be important enough to kill innocent German/Japanese cogs and civilians by the millions.
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-enthusiast hopes do). 1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required. SOLUTION = Nuclear 2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy con…
There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The climate is always changing” After you’ve had 100 people tell you that, you’ll probably change your mind. Social media has made the problem worse. For some reason, deniers flood the discussion with silly statements like that. I keep the xkcd cartoon handy for any discussions: https://xkcd.com/1732/
There are people who stand ready to deny that cartoon too, though... :/ I mean, not even common sense insurance talk works on these guys. Here, kitty, kitty, insurance can save you (and me) from the cancer known as end of the world. No? You'd rather that we both die... Great...
Nothing I said can be interpreted as saying this.
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-enthusiast hopes do). 1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required. SOLUTION = Nuclear 2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy con…
We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. Building nuclear plants takes ten years on average, at the current rate of building them. If you wanted to suddenly build two or three orders of magnitude more, you'd first have to scale up the supply chain, e.g. for pressure vessels. There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.
I'll give one example.
IMO, the solution to the energy problem is obvious: Nuclear. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and most stable form of energy production we have right now. It really works great. We should close all coal/gas plants and replace them with nuclear plants asap. Nuclear's best feature is that it produces no carbon to the atmosphere, and right now, that should be our main concern. But it just so happens that it's also the safest form of energy (death per kwh) and the most stable (active production days per year). Plus we know how to take care of the nuclear waste. Sure it has disadvantages but the overall solution given our situation is totally clear. [0]
The only reason this doesn't happen is the public's perception of nuclear being "evil" and radiation being scary. So no politician despite their good intentions can ever hope to rally the people behind them with this idea.
So we push wind and solar which are a joke. Especially given the urgency of the times. When we site "Renewable energy" we mean bio-mass. [1]. Bio-mass is just burn wood. It's renewable because it releases young carbon so its net-zero emissions.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy [1] https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-enthusiast hopes do). 1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required. SOLUTION = Nuclear 2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step. I think this is actually the worst thing we can do. Science is facts, cold hard facts. If you want to get rid of the science and focus on emotions, then the solutions to the _real_ problem will get distorted.
The science of what is happening is fact. The method by which we engage our collective powers to act is a people problem. We can come together in action, but that requires connecting with as many of our personalities and psyches as possible.
That is a tautology. Exactly how much warming are we looking at by 2100? Is it an emergency, an annoyance, or nothing much?
Will higher CO2 concentrations avert an Ice Age in a few thousand years?
The fact is that market forces are looking as if they will greatly reduce CO2 emissions over the next few decades. The wildcard is how quickly China, India, and emerging third world countries will wean off of coal. Nuclear must be a much bigger part of the mix (see ThorCon and others).
In the meantime, most of the "mitigation efforts" look more like unrelated social engineering.
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-enthusiast hopes do). 1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required. SOLUTION = Nuclear 2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy con…
We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. Building nuclear plants takes ten years on average, at the current rate of building them. If you wanted to suddenly build two or three orders of magnitude more, you'd first have to scale up the supply chain, e.g. for pressure vessels. There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.
First off, if that is the case you can be sure we'll end "above 2°" (by which I'm sure you mean 2° above some earlier average). China and India alone have massive projected tails for their CO2 output.
Second, "10 years of emissions left"? You're suggesting that somehow C02 emissions could be curtailed completely within 10 years? Absurd...
Neither transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity are known well enough to make such pronouncements - but the global warming alarmists feel it necessary to periodically throw a deadline out there. They think it's good psychology, and will lead to more panic...whether or not such panic is actually justified.