7 ms·

> From whence cometh hope? Yes, it's most likely too late to hit the 1.5C, and 2C as well unless our beloved leaders suddenly step up to the plate with, you kn

by jabl 8y ago

> From whence cometh hope? Yes, it's most likely too late to hit the 1.5C, and 2C as well unless our beloved leaders suddenly step up to the plate with, you know, actions; we've had enough of flowery words already thank you very much. But, it's not black and white. Everything we can do, helps make it less bad. From Kate Raworth: - Don't be a pessimist, if it makes you give up. - Don't be an optimist, if it makes you laid back. - Be an activist! The urgency of the climate issue is one of the main reasons I support nuclear power, in addition to renewables. Heck, although I've long seen CCS as a boondoggle, there are some recent promising results there as well which we ought to look seriously into (lookup "Net Power" and their "Allam cycle" tech). We need a crash program to build every zero-carbon source we can!

oldcynic 8y ago
> Everything we can do, helps make it less bad Well sometimes. Recycling turns out to be more energy intensive than deposit and reuse. All the moves to efficiency, LED and CCFL lighting, and can be offset by permitting a single additional fracking or shale oil site. Makes it difficult not to logically become a pessimist who gives up when the idiots have orders of magnitude more leverage.
- jabl 8y ago
  > Well sometimes. Perhaps I should have explicitly written "Everything we can do [to reduce GHG emissions]". Of course there's lots of things we do that makes the situation worse! > Recycling turns out to be more energy intensive than deposit and reuse. Sometimes, sometimes not. Say, smelting recycled steel produces a lot less GHG emissions than producing fresh steel with a blast furnace, particularly if the local electricity grid has low carbon intensity. But yes, there are other considerations in the world than GHG emissions. And in some cases increasing GHG emissions might be worth it (say, lifting 3rd world countries out of energy poverty). I'm just saying that GHG reductions should have a lot higher weight in policymaking than what it has now. > All the moves to efficiency, LED and CCFL lighting, and can be offset by permitting a single additional fracking or shale oil site. Maybe. But, it would be even worse if we hadn't done the efficiency, LED etc. stuff and instead permitted two additional wells! Everything, well if not actually helps, at least makes it less bad. > Makes it difficult not to logically become a pessimist who gives up when the idiots have orders of magnitude more leverage. I agree, it's hard. Have to keep trying!
agumonkey 8y ago
That's true albeit I think we need another level. Don't be an activist, things are too large for one person. Be a socialist jokes aside, we all can start doing something, but 1) what exactly ? 2) how to coordinate 3) without falling into politics hell ---- 1) I really wonder how we could help purify air. More plants ? that might absorb some CO2, what about other molecules ? What about vacuums in sewer pipes ? enough to cause a little depression near ground that would suck part of the exhaust gas in places where they can be processed. 2) see above for planting and tweaking cities then 3) .. have no idea
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Its worth noting that the world on average is 14% more green today than 20 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 The reality is that no one really know whats going to happen. Maybe we are doomed maybe we will do just fine, maybe an astroid will hit earth before we find out. Personally i dont think there is much we can do other than to charge on, keep growing our economies and develop new technologies and solutions to the problems nature always have presented us with.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    Maybe it's a rate ratio. 14% more green but 50% more toxic particles ? Not knowledgeable. Anyway, I could tolerate a lot more green anyway :)
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      That's the point. We don't know and any claim to knowing exactly what's going to happen is simply charletanian. We know that earth is warming, we know humans have some effect but not how much, we know that it can have consequences that the oceans are rising but so far we haven't really been able to predict how it's going to affect things (there is natural erosion from the oceans which is unrelated to humans) I think the debate could be a lot more rational if people didn't paint themselves into corners such as the "climate catastrophist" and "climate deniers" in reality there is a lot of things we all agree on but these extreme views are taking everyone hostage to the point were I can't even comment on this without being downvoted (instead of pointing to where someone disagree). The debate certainly has gotten 50% more toxic :)
specialist 8y ago
Solar & wind have already over taken nuclear. Even so, we need to eliminate stockpiles, waste. Traveling wave reactors (TWR) seems like the best technical bet. Maybe we'd get some electricity out of it. (I'm not clear why we don't drop radioactive waste onto the Marianas Trench and let the earth eventually devour it.)
- hackerman12345 8y ago
  If the container leaks, radionuclides might seep out which could be bad news (flowing with currents or ingested by fish). Solving the political issues at Yucca would be a great permanent solution to waste.
  - specialist 8y ago
    I sort of expected everything to be turned into glass (vitrification) by now. I'm terrified of what's happening in at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. My friends (who work on this issue) tell me that when the toxic plum seeps thru the water table all the way to the Columbia River, everything down stream becomes uninhabitable. That's Portland, Vancouver (WA), etc. I really want someone to figure out how to turn all that crap into glass trinkets and then drop into deepest ocean.
- jabl 8y ago
  > Solar & wind have already over taken nuclear. Solar and wind have rapidly come down in price, which is awesome. However, due to their variable nature, they do suffer from the problem of declining value as their grid penetration increases. So there is a place for dispatchable capacity. If your country has enough dispatchable renewables like hydro or geothermal, awesome. If not, there's not that many good options. Nuclear, and maybe fossil and/or biofuels (in general, I'm very skeptical wrt large-scale biofule use, so this ought to be very limited) with CCS. Batteries and demand shifting are good for short-term bursts, and will likely replace gas in that role, but for large scale shifting they are way too expensive. I'm very much a fan of the work Jesse Jenkins is doing in power systems modeling, see e.g. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/events/getting-zero-pathways-zero-carbon-electricity-systems https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/events/getting-zero-pathway... > Even so, we need to eliminate stockpiles, waste. Traveling wave reactors (TWR) seems like the best technical bet. Maybe we'd get some electricity out of it. Last I read, the company behind the TWR (TerraPower) is mostly focusing on a fast spectrum molten salt reactor nowadays. Which is cool, I'm a big fan of the fast MSR as a concept. That being said, while breeding would allow us to increase the utilization of nuclear fuel by about two orders of magnitude, at the moment uranium is so cheap that it's not seen as economically worthwhile. But, if nuclear is going to play a major role in the world's energy supply, breeders will eventually be necessary. So I do think we should develop them. > (I'm not clear why we don't drop radioactive waste onto the Marianas Trench and let the earth eventually devour it.) The waste problem is more political than technical. Burying the waste deep in bedrock is perfectly good.

by jabl 8y ago

oldcynic 8y ago

> Everything we can do, helps make it less bad Well sometimes. Recycling turns out to be more energy intensive than deposit and reuse. All the moves to efficiency, LED and CCFL lighting, and can be offset by permitting a single additional fracking or shale oil site. Makes it difficult not to logically become a pessimist who gives up when the idiots have orders of magnitude more leverage.

jabl 8y ago
> Well sometimes. Perhaps I should have explicitly written "Everything we can do [to reduce GHG emissions]". Of course there's lots of things we do that makes the situation worse! > Recycling turns out to be more energy intensive than deposit and reuse. Sometimes, sometimes not. Say, smelting recycled steel produces a lot less GHG emissions than producing fresh steel with a blast furnace, particularly if the local electricity grid has low carbon intensity. But yes, there are other considerations in the world than GHG emissions. And in some cases increasing GHG emissions might be worth it (say, lifting 3rd world countries out of energy poverty). I'm just saying that GHG reductions should have a lot higher weight in policymaking than what it has now. > All the moves to efficiency, LED and CCFL lighting, and can be offset by permitting a single additional fracking or shale oil site. Maybe. But, it would be even worse if we hadn't done the efficiency, LED etc. stuff and instead permitted two additional wells! Everything, well if not actually helps, at least makes it less bad. > Makes it difficult not to logically become a pessimist who gives up when the idiots have orders of magnitude more leverage. I agree, it's hard. Have to keep trying!

agumonkey 8y ago

That's true albeit I think we need another level. Don't be an activist, things are too large for one person. Be a socialist jokes aside, we all can start doing something, but 1) what exactly ? 2) how to coordinate 3) without falling into politics hell ---- 1) I really wonder how we could help purify air. More plants ? that might absorb some CO2, what about other molecules ? What about vacuums in sewer pipes ? enough to cause a little depression near ground that would suck part of the exhaust gas in places where they can be processed. 2) see above for planting and tweaking cities then 3) .. have no idea

ThomPete 8y ago
Its worth noting that the world on average is 14% more green today than 20 years ago. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 The reality is that no one really know whats going to happen. Maybe we are doomed maybe we will do just fine, maybe an astroid will hit earth before we find out. Personally i dont think there is much we can do other than to charge on, keep growing our economies and develop new technologies and solutions to the problems nature always have presented us with.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  Maybe it's a rate ratio. 14% more green but 50% more toxic particles ? Not knowledgeable. Anyway, I could tolerate a lot more green anyway :)
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    That's the point. We don't know and any claim to knowing exactly what's going to happen is simply charletanian. We know that earth is warming, we know humans have some effect but not how much, we know that it can have consequences that the oceans are rising but so far we haven't really been able to predict how it's going to affect things (there is natural erosion from the oceans which is unrelated to humans) I think the debate could be a lot more rational if people didn't paint themselves into corners such as the "climate catastrophist" and "climate deniers" in reality there is a lot of things we all agree on but these extreme views are taking everyone hostage to the point were I can't even comment on this without being downvoted (instead of pointing to where someone disagree). The debate certainly has gotten 50% more toxic :)

specialist 8y ago

Solar & wind have already over taken nuclear. Even so, we need to eliminate stockpiles, waste. Traveling wave reactors (TWR) seems like the best technical bet. Maybe we'd get some electricity out of it. (I'm not clear why we don't drop radioactive waste onto the Marianas Trench and let the earth eventually devour it.)

hackerman12345 8y ago
If the container leaks, radionuclides might seep out which could be bad news (flowing with currents or ingested by fish). Solving the political issues at Yucca would be a great permanent solution to waste.
- specialist 8y ago
  I sort of expected everything to be turned into glass (vitrification) by now. I'm terrified of what's happening in at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. My friends (who work on this issue) tell me that when the toxic plum seeps thru the water table all the way to the Columbia River, everything down stream becomes uninhabitable. That's Portland, Vancouver (WA), etc. I really want someone to figure out how to turn all that crap into glass trinkets and then drop into deepest ocean.
jabl 8y ago
> Solar & wind have already over taken nuclear. Solar and wind have rapidly come down in price, which is awesome. However, due to their variable nature, they do suffer from the problem of declining value as their grid penetration increases. So there is a place for dispatchable capacity. If your country has enough dispatchable renewables like hydro or geothermal, awesome. If not, there's not that many good options. Nuclear, and maybe fossil and/or biofuels (in general, I'm very skeptical wrt large-scale biofule use, so this ought to be very limited) with CCS. Batteries and demand shifting are good for short-term bursts, and will likely replace gas in that role, but for large scale shifting they are way too expensive. I'm very much a fan of the work Jesse Jenkins is doing in power systems modeling, see e.g. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/events/getting-zero-pathways-zero-carbon-electricity-systems https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/events/getting-zero-pathway... > Even so, we need to eliminate stockpiles, waste. Traveling wave reactors (TWR) seems like the best technical bet. Maybe we'd get some electricity out of it. Last I read, the company behind the TWR (TerraPower) is mostly focusing on a fast spectrum molten salt reactor nowadays. Which is cool, I'm a big fan of the fast MSR as a concept. That being said, while breeding would allow us to increase the utilization of nuclear fuel by about two orders of magnitude, at the moment uranium is so cheap that it's not seen as economically worthwhile. But, if nuclear is going to play a major role in the world's energy supply, breeders will eventually be necessary. So I do think we should develop them. > (I'm not clear why we don't drop radioactive waste onto the Marianas Trench and let the earth eventually devour it.) The waste problem is more political than technical. Burying the waste deep in bedrock is perfectly good.