cagenut

31 ms·

331.
by cagenut 7y ago
lol a week
332.
by cagenut 7y ago
Says you. The professionals disagree: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmi... Studies of existing systems and projects under development demonstrate that HVDC can be effective i
333.
by cagenut 7y ago
I was "pro-nuclear" from like the 90's until 2017. Every year since then it has made less and less sense. The cost of wind, solar, and batteries has plummeted, and the curves continue to bend in the right direction. The cos
334.
by cagenut 7y ago
hi dang which side are you on? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-... the bodies are piling up. are you a polite german or a rude one? i'm a rude one.
335.
by cagenut 7y ago
> Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. Here you are assuming we don't solve the problem as your first premise. Of course everything downstream of this will be faulty reasoning, because you are defining your sta
336.
by cagenut 7y ago
yes when the cost of carbon is not accounted for then it creates financial incentives to not just ignore but actively exploit that externality.
337.
by cagenut 7y ago
Yes, the number one problem we have right now is neither technological nor scientific. Its the self defeating circular reasoning of normalcy bias and projecting your unwillingness to change on everyone else.
338.
by cagenut 7y ago
I have no idea how you got it in your head that i'm advocating for DAC. I not only did not do that, I specifically did the opposite by saying I have "0%" hope for it. The fact that you've twisted this around now into t
339.
by cagenut 7y ago
oh well if we just ignore efficiency and cost! you are living in a world of spherical cows, not in the reality of the climate emergency. please understand that as the body counts rise this level of "technically correct" pedantry w
340.
by cagenut 7y ago
point source capturing co2 from burning fossil fuels and then turning it into more liquid fuels that you then burn again is madness . you get that right? it makes less sense than simply saying "fuck it" and pumping the same a
341.
by cagenut 7y ago
you are correct that marginal pricing mechanism are no longer enough to solve this problem. we have moved on to the legislative phase.
342.
by cagenut 7y ago
Its important to remember the time constraint in these conversations. Engineering is about constraints, and if you simply remove the biggest one (time) it becomes facile and easy to endlessly talk about future, hypothetical, optimistic &qu
343.
by cagenut 7y ago
couple of key points here: #1 - this article is a great example of how the conversation is shifting, but the mid-point we're at now is a wasteland of nonsense and cognitive dissonance. the text of the article is about the truth of wha
344.
by cagenut 7y ago
its to the point where i'm consciously trying to not engage in the facts debate or the what-about-foo endless spiraling. we're over-complicating things and enabling the "debate" to continue to waste precious time. coal
345.
by cagenut 7y ago
the article mentions cement is 8% of GHG emissions in text, but if you'd like a good visual on that: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-by-source
346.
by cagenut 7y ago
sure, I may not be. its still an extremely ideological and flat out psycho bet to assume it will be though. it is functionally no different from saying "jesus take the wheel"
347.
by cagenut 7y ago
empirically speaking no, we (mankind) have never moved half or more of our agriculture hundreds of miles in a generation or two without large number of people not making the transition. maybe we pull it off this time? seems like a flat out
348.
by cagenut 7y ago
it is really disturbing how relentlessly hacker news reactionaries will downvote anyone who dares phrase the ipcc reports in plain english. what does it mean to our concepts of reason and engineering if one of the most "technical"
349.
by cagenut 7y ago
In a 2C world its very unlikely, in a 4C world its highly likely. So the question is, and always has been, where will we stop? The BAU trendline is ~4.5C by 2100. At which point everything from philidelphia to oakland will be desert.
350.
by cagenut 7y ago
It has seemed inevitable since the volt's door handles that eventually all electric vehicle designs are going to converge to a nearly uniform teardrop form.
351.
by cagenut 7y ago
Seems better to read the source blog post than BI's clickbait aggregation of it: https://pando.com/2019/10/23/we-sold-pando/
352.
by cagenut 7y ago
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM1... 1.5 - 2C depending on how hard (if at all) we cut emissions going forward.
353.
by cagenut 7y ago
My understanding is that they have already filed for Chapter 11. Also the stock has fallen from 50 to 5. Meaning, the "old" PG&E is already dead. We can beat said dead horse over exec bonuses and tree trimming failures all w
354.
by cagenut 7y ago
There are two types of people: The 80% that process Pareto distributions as bi-modal, and the 20% that see the gradient.
355.
by cagenut 7y ago
My post clearly say "80+%" not "to 0". There is no need to lie or put words in my mouth, you can see the actual statement on your screen just a couple inches above this one. It is incredibly suspicious that you would acc
356.
by cagenut 7y ago
This is just pointless smug contrarianism, I hope you're just in a bad mood and don't really believe or think this way regularly. Mining trucks are excellent candidates for battery electrification, Volvo is already building and s
357.
by cagenut 7y ago
The cost of climate change to exxon mobile is nearly binary. It is much more existential than a measurable vector. If we are to stay under 1.5C, 80%+ of their reserves, and therefore their book value, must stay in the ground. These account
358.
by cagenut 7y ago
This is super cool. I'd love to see a version of it for the nyc-metro area, or i guess sf-bay area since this is standford. My personal opinion that I've never done anywhere near this much math and modeling to support is that re
359.
by cagenut 7y ago
thank you
360.
by cagenut 7y ago
trouble's coming!

More ›