Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
The latest IPCC report is out and its now at the stage of basically saying we are f**ked if we want to keep climate change down to less than the 2 degree average; I am sure the media & political reaction is the same across the western world. 1 day of wailing how we are failing, and then silence:

So, Seeing as this forum is the next best thing to the UN and twice as intelligent, are we going to solve this issue? and if so how?

My take on it is right now we need a massive ramp up in nuclear, focus on reducing costs and time to operation. We (in many countries) are focusing on renewables which is great to a degree (for context I have worked in offshore wind for a decade).

As nuclear is often controversial, what would convince you that we need it?

Here is some 'propaganda': Yes I am skewing the debate, but feel free to change it

https://youtu.be/AAFWeIp8JT0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHsljVnY6oI

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
My feeling is we are fuked.

We can fix it, but its too political now. People on the right (far right?) think its either BS, natural cycles or it won't have much of an impact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38614
Location: in transit
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... es/568309/

Quote:
Science
The Most Honest Book About Climate Change Yet

William T. Vollmann’s latest opus is brilliant, but it offers no comfort to its readers.
Nathaniel Rich
October 2018 Issue


Quote:
It is also an almanac of global energy use. The initial volume opens with a 200-page primer busy with tables, lists, and data (“I assure you that there will be no harm in skipping to page 217”) and concludes with 80 pages of definitions, units, and conversions (“Readers should feel free to skip this section”). It is a travelogue to natural landscapes riven by energy production, most prominently Fukushima (nuclear), West Virginia (coal), Colorado (natural gas), and the United Arab Emirates (oil). It is a work of oral history, containing dozens of interviews with laborers who toil in or live beside nuclear reactors, caves, and oil refineries, paired with Vollmann’s own snapshots. And it is a compassionate work of anthropology that tries to make sense of man’s inability to weigh future cataclysm against short-term comfort. Carbon Ideologies is most fascinating, however, for what it is not: a polemic.

Nearly every book about climate change that has been written for a general audience contains within it a message of hope, and often a prod toward action. Vollmann declares from the outset that he will not offer any solutions, because he does not believe any are possible: “Nothing can be done to save [the world as we know it]; therefore, nothing need be done.” This makes Carbon Ideologies, for all its merits and flaws, one of the most honest books yet written on climate change. Vollmann’s undertaking is in the vanguard of the coming second wave of climate literature, books written not to diagnose or solve the problem, but to grapple with its moral consequences.

It is also a deeply idiosyncratic project: Vollmann’s idiolect is obsessive, punctilious, twitchy, hyperobservational, and proudly amateurish. The data he presents are at times revelatory. A homeless person in America uses twice as much energy as the average global citizen; 61 percent of the energy generated in the United States in 2012 “accomplished no useful work whatsoever”; from 1980 to 2011, global energy use nearly tripled. Elsewhere the data are impossibly arcane (“Power Wastage by Group-Driven Machine Tools, ca. 1945 [Deducting Idle Machines]”) or defiantly unscientific (“I am sorry that I could not make my table simple, complete or accurate”). His insatiable appetite for detail yields both irrelevant trivia (“Embarking on the Super Limited Hitachi Express, which was also known as the Super Hitachi 23 Limited Express”) and magisterial portraits of landscapes befouled by poking and prodding and, in the case of West Virginia’s mountains, decapitating.

The Fukushima section is especially uncanny in its evocation of a sublime coastal landscape vibrating with gamma rays. Vollmann breathes a cool wind “whose degree of particulate contamination was of course unknown,” hears on a silent street at night the grunting of a radioactive wild boar, and walks on broken glass through an abandoned clothing store advertising a 50 percent–off sale and peopled by headless mannequins. Though nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse-gas emissions, its horrors come to stand for those of climate change, a vast terror invisible to those victimized by it—at least in the short term. Though Vollmann refers to the Fukushima chapters when he writes that his project is sustained on “little more than blindness, uneasiness, helplessness and ignorance,” he is describing all of Carbon Ideologies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6770
Of course we have natural cycles but trashing the environment and walking with a heavy footprint carries a big cost.

Climate warming will happen as part of the cycle but thats not an excuse to ignore everything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34908
Location: Planet Rock
james garner wrote:
Are we going to solve climate change?

Isn't this a bit like asking how to solve the obesity crisis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5177
Location: The void
It wont be finished changing by the time we die. So no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
guy smiley wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/william-vollmann-carbon-ideologies/568309/

Quote:
Science
The Most Honest Book About Climate Change Yet

William T. Vollmann’s latest opus is brilliant, but it offers no comfort to its readers.
Nathaniel Rich
October 2018 Issue


Quote:
It is also an almanac of global energy use. The initial volume opens with a 200-page primer busy with tables, lists, and data (“I assure you that there will be no harm in skipping to page 217”) and concludes with 80 pages of definitions, units, and conversions (“Readers should feel free to skip this section”). It is a travelogue to natural landscapes riven by energy production, most prominently Fukushima (nuclear), West Virginia (coal), Colorado (natural gas), and the United Arab Emirates (oil). It is a work of oral history, containing dozens of interviews with laborers who toil in or live beside nuclear reactors, caves, and oil refineries, paired with Vollmann’s own snapshots. And it is a compassionate work of anthropology that tries to make sense of man’s inability to weigh future cataclysm against short-term comfort. Carbon Ideologies is most fascinating, however, for what it is not: a polemic.

Nearly every book about climate change that has been written for a general audience contains within it a message of hope, and often a prod toward action. Vollmann declares from the outset that he will not offer any solutions, because he does not believe any are possible: “Nothing can be done to save [the world as we know it]; therefore, nothing need be done.” This makes Carbon Ideologies, for all its merits and flaws, one of the most honest books yet written on climate change. Vollmann’s undertaking is in the vanguard of the coming second wave of climate literature, books written not to diagnose or solve the problem, but to grapple with its moral consequences.

It is also a deeply idiosyncratic project: Vollmann’s idiolect is obsessive, punctilious, twitchy, hyperobservational, and proudly amateurish. The data he presents are at times revelatory. A homeless person in America uses twice as much energy as the average global citizen; 61 percent of the energy generated in the United States in 2012 “accomplished no useful work whatsoever”; from 1980 to 2011, global energy use nearly tripled. Elsewhere the data are impossibly arcane (“Power Wastage by Group-Driven Machine Tools, ca. 1945 [Deducting Idle Machines]”) or defiantly unscientific (“I am sorry that I could not make my table simple, complete or accurate”). His insatiable appetite for detail yields both irrelevant trivia (“Embarking on the Super Limited Hitachi Express, which was also known as the Super Hitachi 23 Limited Express”) and magisterial portraits of landscapes befouled by poking and prodding and, in the case of West Virginia’s mountains, decapitating.

The Fukushima section is especially uncanny in its evocation of a sublime coastal landscape vibrating with gamma rays. Vollmann breathes a cool wind “whose degree of particulate contamination was of course unknown,” hears on a silent street at night the grunting of a radioactive wild boar, and walks on broken glass through an abandoned clothing store advertising a 50 percent–off sale and peopled by headless mannequins. Though nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse-gas emissions, its horrors come to stand for those of climate change, a vast terror invisible to those victimized by it—at least in the short term. Though Vollmann refers to the Fukushima chapters when he writes that his project is sustained on “little more than blindness, uneasiness, helplessness and ignorance,” he is describing all of Carbon Ideologies.


great article to give the point that we will fail, the bit on bold explains why we fail if we dont tackle the nuclear issue, as i understand it you could be right up close to the Fukushima power plant and sit there for days; you would get a higher dose when taking a transatlantic flight


Last edited by james garner on Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22322
Location: Centre of the Universe
As someone who has a very small carbon footprint, has fairly green habits, and who won't have any offspring, I can smugly say that I'm not fcuked. I won't be around to see the worst of it.

It's the yuppies with three kids, driving them to every other thing in their SUV that should be worried. Their kids or grandkids will be Mad Maxing it out in the wastelands and/or water worlds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
Anonymous. wrote:
james garner wrote:
Are we going to solve climate change?

Isn't this a bit like asking how to solve the obesity crisis


Obesity crisis is easy to solve in theory but hard to do due to human nature. Climate issue hard to solve and human nature.

Maybe burn the fatties for fuel? Would make more space for the backs to score trys


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
james garner wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
james garner wrote:
Are we going to solve climate change?

Isn't this a bit like asking how to solve the obesity crisis


Obesity crisis is easy to solve in theory but hard to do due to human nature. Climate issue hard to solve and human nature.

Maybe burn the fatties for fuel? Would make more space for the backs to score trys


Climate change, or rather the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is easy to change in theory too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38614
Location: in transit
Nieghorn wrote:
As someone who has a very small carbon footprint, has fairly green habits, and who won't have any offspring, I can smugly say that I'm not fcuked. I won't be around to see the worst of it.

It's the yuppies with three kids, driving them to every other thing in their SUV that should be worried. Their kids or grandkids will be Mad Maxing it out in the wastelands and/or water worlds.



Nah... you're underestimating the challenge massively.

Go to SE Asia and witness the insatiable demand to be a part of a wealthy world. Massive numbers of people acquiring enough material wealth to buy energy hungry devices and fuel burning vehicles every day and no sign of slowing down...

and that's not to blame one region, just to explain the appetite we have for our own destruction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
Sensible Stephen wrote:
james garner wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
james garner wrote:
Are we going to solve climate change?

Isn't this a bit like asking how to solve the obesity crisis


Obesity crisis is easy to solve in theory but hard to do due to human nature. Climate issue hard to solve and human nature.

Maybe burn the fatties for fuel? Would make more space for the backs to score trys


Climate change, or rather the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is easy to change in theory too.


its not that difficult in practice if you bring in nuclear power to play a bigger role. Not easy but well withing our scope of technology


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
guy smiley wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
As someone who has a very small carbon footprint, has fairly green habits, and who won't have any offspring, I can smugly say that I'm not fcuked. I won't be around to see the worst of it.

It's the yuppies with three kids, driving them to every other thing in their SUV that should be worried. Their kids or grandkids will be Mad Maxing it out in the wastelands and/or water worlds.



Nah... you're underestimating the challenge massively.

Go to SE Asia and witness the insatiable demand to be a part of a wealthy world. Massive numbers of people acquiring enough material wealth to buy energy hungry devices and fuel burning vehicles every day and no sign of slowing down...

and that's not to blame one region, just to explain the appetite we have for our own destruction.


And this is the huge issue, the world wants more power, sure we in the west if we press our govs can demand zero energy homes (laughing here as despite this being easy to do none of our countries have done it), we can reduce energy demands overall in many ways but to fight climate change, overall we need more electricity, and the rest of the world does to. So lets bring it, we need nuclear developed on a global scale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20086
Location: STRAYA!
My Dad is a staunch climate change denier. This is probably (most likely) due to the fact he is heavily invested in the coal mining industry being a mining engineer/mine manager/general coal loving loon. I'm also an engineer but an environmental one. We get into big debates about this every year but I always end with "it doesn't matter if you think it's man made or natural, this is our only planet. Why not do something to save it?"

And then I throw a DVD of an Inconvenient Truth at him. I bought a whole box of them a few years ago when they were on special and give him one every year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38614
Location: in transit
Let's skip the bullshit then and accept that you've mounted a thread disguised as concern about climate change to promote nuclear power...

which is fine if just a little deceptive and dishonest, along with filthy, dirty conniving distortion and propaganda.

But that's up to you to deal with.


The issue of heavily promoting nuclear as a solution is that it fails utterly to address the problem. We are destroying our environment through our philosophies of use and discard, we've lost the primitive ability to live within our natural limits and become enamoured with our ability to destroy those limits. Consequences are about to become our new field of discovery.

What we needed to do long ago was work out how to live within a limited ecosystem while advancing technologically. Nuclear is just another symptom of failing to do that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
Thomas wrote:
My Dad is a staunch climate change denier. This is probably (most likely) due to the fact he is heavily invested in the coal mining industry being a mining engineer/mine manager/general coal loving loon. I'm also an engineer but an environmental one. We get into big debates about this every year but I always end with "it doesn't matter if you think it's man made or natural, this is our only planet. Why not do something to save it?"

And then I throw a DVD of an Inconvenient Truth at him. I bought a whole box of them a few years ago when they were on special and give him one every year.


Thomas this is taking PR level trolling to a new level, I love it. Do you get a thank-you card each year?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20086
Location: STRAYA!
james garner wrote:
Thomas wrote:
My Dad is a staunch climate change denier. This is probably (most likely) due to the fact he is heavily invested in the coal mining industry being a mining engineer/mine manager/general coal loving loon. I'm also an engineer but an environmental one. We get into big debates about this every year but I always end with "it doesn't matter if you think it's man made or natural, this is our only planet. Why not do something to save it?"

And then I throw a DVD of an Inconvenient Truth at him. I bought a whole box of them a few years ago when they were on special and give him one every year.


Thomas this is taking PR level trolling to a new level, I love it. Do you get a thank-you card each year?!


He just mutters and throws it in the cupboard with the others.

My sister does the same but with Al Gore's biography.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 872
Location: City Cow Titty, the kingdom
guy smiley wrote:
Let's skip the bullshit then and accept that you've mounted a thread disguised as concern about climate change to promote nuclear power...

which is fine if just a little deceptive and dishonest, along with filthy, dirty conniving distortion and propaganda.

But that's up to you to deal with.

The issue of heavily promoting nuclear as a solution is that it fails utterly to address the problem. We are destroying our environment through our philosophies of use and discard, we've lost the primitive ability to live within our natural limits and become enamoured with our ability to destroy those limits. Consequences are about to become our new field of discovery.

What we needed to do long ago was work out how to live within a limited ecosystem while advancing technologically. Nuclear is just another symptom of failing to do that.


Are you paranoid much?

I have worked in renewable energy for over a decade, I have worked on over 10GW of Offshore wind, primarily because I thought working on a solution to climate change was a good thing to do, I have never worked in the nuclear industry. Nothing deceptive or dishonest about this thread, do you really view those video links i posted as dirty conniving distortion and propaganda?

Nuclear is only part of the solution, but it needs discussion as too many people in western countries seem to have hysterical reactions to it.

use and discard issues are not the main problem when it comes to energy & climate, and both renewables and nuclear are energy forms that we can use for eons, both can be done with limited discard, nuclear is the opposite of failing to live within our means, a tiny piece of ore gives huge amounts of power


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22322
Location: Centre of the Universe
guy smiley wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
As someone who has a very small carbon footprint, has fairly green habits, and who won't have any offspring, I can smugly say that I'm not fcuked. I won't be around to see the worst of it.

It's the yuppies with three kids, driving them to every other thing in their SUV that should be worried. Their kids or grandkids will be Mad Maxing it out in the wastelands and/or water worlds.



Nah... you're underestimating the challenge massively.

Go to SE Asia and witness the insatiable demand to be a part of a wealthy world. Massive numbers of people acquiring enough material wealth to buy energy hungry devices and fuel burning vehicles every day and no sign of slowing down...

and that's not to blame one region, just to explain the appetite we have for our own destruction.


So you're saying I'm going to be Mad Maxing it before I die, and not just my friends' kids and their kids? Being from rural Canada, I'm probably better off to live off the land and hole up in a difficult-to-reach shack than most'a you city slickers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38614
Location: in transit
Nieghorn wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Nieghorn wrote:
As someone who has a very small carbon footprint, has fairly green habits, and who won't have any offspring, I can smugly say that I'm not fcuked. I won't be around to see the worst of it.

It's the yuppies with three kids, driving them to every other thing in their SUV that should be worried. Their kids or grandkids will be Mad Maxing it out in the wastelands and/or water worlds.



Nah... you're underestimating the challenge massively.

Go to SE Asia and witness the insatiable demand to be a part of a wealthy world. Massive numbers of people acquiring enough material wealth to buy energy hungry devices and fuel burning vehicles every day and no sign of slowing down...

and that's not to blame one region, just to explain the appetite we have for our own destruction.


So you're saying I'm going to be Mad Maxing it before I die, and not just my friends' kids and their kids? Being from rural Canada, I'm probably better off to live off the land and hole up in a difficult-to-reach shack than most'a you city slickers.



I read something the other day about the proportion of global population that is threatened directly by sea level rise being massive due to urbanisation and the majority of our major cities being coastal or exposed to tidal cycles. Up is good.

James, I'm trolling you on your enthusiasm for nuclear. Even with major developments in efficiencies across nuclear it's still practically a decades away type of energy option. Meanwhile, technology is allowing advances to continue with other options while costs reduce. For the effort, cost and time involved to succeed, I don't see nuclear being able to compete.

The problem is political anyway, not technical. No-one wants to really do anything or even admit the problem so everyone is driving along staring grimly straight ahead waiting for someone else to flinch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8030
Location: Vandean Coast
Ain't too many hurricanes in Montana

Just sayin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8030
Location: Vandean Coast
guy smiley wrote:
Even with major developments in efficiencies across nuclear it's still practically a decades away type of energy option. Meanwhile, technology is allowing advances to continue with other options while costs reduce. For the effort, cost and time involved to succeed, I don't see nuclear being able to compete.




For truly large scale energy production nuclear wipes the floor with the renewable options other than large hydro schemes. Not every country has the land available to build a million wind turbines and even fewer have viable hydro capacity.

For a country like Singapore for example to convert their fossil fuel generation to carbon-zero generation there isn't really any options other than nuclear. Even countries like Denmark that do have wind resources, and the space to build them, rely about half on other sources and would probably have to go nuclear to entirely replace their coal and oil.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
guy smiley wrote:
James, I'm trolling you on your enthusiasm for nuclear. Even with major developments in efficiencies across nuclear it's still practically a decades away type of energy option. Meanwhile, technology is allowing advances to continue with other options while costs reduce. For the effort, cost and time involved to succeed, I don't see nuclear being able to compete.


Hmmm.. Bill Gates disagrees with you.

And I don't think its anywhere near as black and white as that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34908
Location: Planet Rock
guy smiley wrote:
Let's skip the bullshit then and accept that you've mounted a thread disguised as concern about climate change to promote nuclear power...

which is fine if just a little deceptive and dishonest, along with filthy, dirty conniving distortion and propaganda.

But that's up to you to deal with.


The issue of heavily promoting nuclear as a solution is that it fails utterly to address the problem. We are destroying our environment through our philosophies of use and discard, we've lost the primitive ability to live within our natural limits and become enamoured with our ability to destroy those limits. Consequences are about to become our new field of discovery.

What we needed to do long ago was work out how to live within a limited ecosystem while advancing technologically. Nuclear is just another symptom of failing to do that.

On the bright side it won't take the earth that long to recover and develop new life after we are dust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6994
Are we going to solve climate change? Unlikely

But we will work out ways to alleviate some of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38614
Location: in transit
Sensible Stephen wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
James, I'm trolling you on your enthusiasm for nuclear. Even with major developments in efficiencies across nuclear it's still practically a decades away type of energy option. Meanwhile, technology is allowing advances to continue with other options while costs reduce. For the effort, cost and time involved to succeed, I don't see nuclear being able to compete.


Hmmm.. Bill Gates disagrees with you.

And I don't think its anywhere near as black and white as that.


I'd love to be convinced and afford myself a less gloomy view of impending doom, plague, drought and of course, cats developing speech and proving for once and for all that they are, indeed cnuts out to piss everyone off and f**k us all over.

So yeah, I hope we've got serious options and don't nuke the joint in a hurry to build at record pace with cheap migrant labour but we need to do something pretty f**king effective in a relative hurry. Then there's the roadblock that is the current political climate of escalating tensions and trade wars fuelled by some bastard ideology that profits the few dinosaurs in the face of simple scientific evidence demanding the opposite and I feel gloomy again.

The f**king cats are going to win this mate. The cnuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
Promising...

Quote:
It’s nothing much to look at, but the tangle of pipes, pumps, tanks, reactors, chimneys and ducts on a messy industrial estate outside the logging town of Squamish in western Canada could just provide the fix to stop the world tipping into runaway climate change and substitute dwindling supplies of conventional fuel.

It could also make Harvard superstar physicist David Keith, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and oil sands magnate Norman Murray Edwards more money than they could ever dream of.

The idea is grandiose yet simple: decarbonise the global economy by extracting global-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) straight from the air, using arrays of giant fans and patented chemical whizzery; and then use the gas to make clean, carbon-neutral synthetic diesel and petrol to drive the world’s ships, planes and trucks.

The hope is that the combination of direct air capture (DAC), water electrolysis and fuels synthesis used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels can be made to work at a global scale, for little more than it costs to extract and sell fossil fuel today. This would revolutionise the world’s transport industry, which emits nearly one-third of total climate-changing emissions. It would be the equivalent of mechanising photosynthesis.

The individual technologies may not be new, but their combination at an industrial scale would be groundbreaking. Carbon Engineering, the company set up in 2009 by leading geoengineer Keith, with money from Gates and Murray, has constructed a prototype plant, installed large fans, and has been extracting around one tonne of pure CO2 every day for a year. At present it is released back into the air.

But Carbon Engineering (CE) has just passed another milestone. Working with California energy company Greyrock, it has now begun directly synthesising a mixture of petrol and diesel, using only CO2 captured from the air and hydrogen split from water with clean electricity – a process they call Air to Fuels (A2F).

“A2F is a potentially game-changing technology, which if successfully scaled up will allow us to harness cheap, intermittent renewable electricity to drive synthesis of liquid fuels that are compatible with modern infrastructure and engines,” says Geoff Holmes of CE. “This offers an alternative to biofuels and a complement to electric vehicles in the effort to displace fossil fuels from transportation.”

Synthetic fuels have been made from CO2 and H2 before, on a small scale. “But,” Holmes adds, “we think our pilot plant is the first instance of Air to Fuels where all the equipment has large-scale industrial precedent, and thus gives real indication of commercial performance and viability, and leads directly to scale-up and deployment.”

The next step is to raise the money, scale up and then commercialise the process using low-carbon electricity like solar PV (photovoltaics). Company publicity envisages massive walls of extractor fans sited outside cities and on non-agricultural land, supplying CO2 for fuel synthesis, and eventually for direct sequestration.

“A2F is the future,” says Holmes, “because it needs 100 times less land and water than biofuels, and can be scaled up and sited anywhere. But for it to work, it will have to reduce costs to little more than it costs to extract oil today, and – even trickier – persuade countries to set a global carbon price.”

Meanwhile, 4,500 miles away, in a large blue shed on a small industrial estate in the South Yorkshire coalfield outside Sheffield, the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) is experimenting with other ways to produce negative emissions.

Critics say these technologies are unfeasible. Not producing the emissions in the first place would be much cleverer
The UKCCSRC is what remains of Britain’s official foray into carbon capture and storage (CCS), which David Cameron had backed strongly until 2015. £1bn was ringfenced for a competition between large companies to extract CO2 from coal and gas plants and then store it, possibly in old North Sea gas wells. But the plan unravelled as austerity bit, and the UK’s only running CCS pilot plant, at Ferrybridge power station, was abandoned.

The Sheffield laboratory is funded by £2.7m of government money and run by Sheffield University. It is researching different fuels, temperatures, solvents and heating speeds to best capture the CO2 for the next generation of CCS plants, and is capturing 50 tonnes of CO2 a year. And because Britain is phasing out coal power stations, the focus is on achieving negative emissions by removing and storing CO2 emitted from biomass plants, which burn pulverised wood. As the wood has already absorbed carbon while it grows, it is more or less carbon-neutral when burned. If linked to a carbon capture plant, it theoretically removes carbon from the atmosphere.

Known as Beccs (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), this negative emissions technology is seen as vital if the UK is to meet its long-term climate target of an 80% cut in emissions at 1990 levels by 2050, according to UKCCSRC director Professor Jon Gibbins. The plan, he says, is to capture emissions from clusters of major industries, such as refineries and steelworks in places like Teesside, to reduce the costs of transporting and storing it underground.

“Direct air capture is no substitute for using conventional CCS,” says Gibbins. “Cutting emissions from existing sources at the scale of millions of tonnes a year, to stop the CO2 getting into the air in the first place, is the first priority.

“The best use for all negative emission technologies is to offset emissions that are happening now – paid for by the emitters, or by the fossil fuel suppliers. We need to get to net zero emissions before the sustainable CO2 emissions are used up. This is estimated at around 1,000bn tonnes, or around 20-30 years of global emissions based on current trends,” he says. “Having to go to net negative emissions is obviously unfair and might well prove an unfeasible burden for a future global society already burdened by climate change.”

The challenge is daunting. Worldwide manmade emissions must be brought to “net zero” no later than 2090, says the UN’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That means balancing the amount of carbon released by humans with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference.

But that will not be enough. To avoid runaway climate change, emissions must then become “net negative”, with more carbon being removed than emitted. Many countries, including the UK, assume that negative emissions will be deployed at a large scale. But only a handful of CCS and pilot negative-emission plants are running anywhere in the world, and debate still rages over which, if any, technologies should be employed. (A prize of $25m put up by Richard Branson in 2007 to challenge innovators to find a commercially viable way to remove at least 1bn tonnes of atmospheric CO2 a year for 10 years, and keep it out, has still not been claimed – possibly because the public is uncertain about geoengineering.)

The achilles heel of all negative emission technologies is cost. Government policy units assume that they will become economically viable, but the best hope of Carbon Engineering and other direct air extraction companies is to get the price down to $100 a tonne from the current $600. Even then, to remove just 1% of global emissions would cost around $400bn a year, and would need to be continued for ever. Storing the CO2 permanently would cost extra.

Critics say that these technologies are unfeasible. Not using the fossil fuel and not producing the emissions in the first place would be much cleverer than having to find end-of-pipe solutions, say Professor Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and Glen Peters, research director at the Centre for International Climate Research (Cicero) in Norway.

In a recent article in the journal Science, the two climate scientists said they were not opposed to research on negative emission technologies, but thought the world should proceed on the premise that they will not work at scale. Not to do so, they said, would be a “moral hazard par excellence”.

Instead, governments are relying on these technologies to remove hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere. “It is breathtaking,” says Anderson. “By the middle of the century, many of the models assume as much removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by negative emission technologies as is absorbed naturally today by all of the world’s oceans and plants combined. They are not an insurance policy; they are a high-risk gamble with tomorrow’s generations, particularly those living in poor and climatically vulnerable communities, set to pay the price if our high-stakes bet fails to deliver as promised.” According to Anderson, “The beguiling appeal of relying on future negative emission technologies is that they delay the need for stringent and politically challenging policies today – they pass the buck for reducing carbon on to future generations. But if these Dr Strangelove technologies fail to deliver at the planetary scale envisaged, our own children will be forced to endure the consequences of rapidly rising temperatures and a highly unstable climate.”

Kris Milkowski, business development manager at the UKCCSRC, says: “Negative emissions technology is unavoidable and here to stay. We are simply not moving [to cut emissions] fast enough. If we had an endless pile of money, we could potentially go totally renewable energy. But that transition cannot happen overnight. This, I fear, is the only large-scale solution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_fb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
guy smiley wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
James, I'm trolling you on your enthusiasm for nuclear. Even with major developments in efficiencies across nuclear it's still practically a decades away type of energy option. Meanwhile, technology is allowing advances to continue with other options while costs reduce. For the effort, cost and time involved to succeed, I don't see nuclear being able to compete.


Hmmm.. Bill Gates disagrees with you.

And I don't think its anywhere near as black and white as that.


I'd love to be convinced and afford myself a less gloomy view of impending doom, plague, drought and of course, cats developing speech and proving for once and for all that they are, indeed cnuts out to piss everyone off and f**k us all over.

So yeah, I hope we've got serious options and don't nuke the joint in a hurry to build at record pace with cheap migrant labour but we need to do something pretty f**king effective in a relative hurry. Then there's the roadblock that is the current political climate of escalating tensions and trade wars fuelled by some bastard ideology that profits the few dinosaurs in the face of simple scientific evidence demanding the opposite and I feel gloomy again.

The f**king cats are going to win this mate. The cnuts.


Geelong? Nah mate, they've had their day in the sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 5880
If religions didn't exist, we would have solved climate change by now, infact i think climate change would not have existed as we would have found a way to clean the air and repair the ozone by now...we were barely moving for the last 5000 years and in the last 100 we jumped to Mach 5 speed...i think it was true whoever said this (read it in a book in 1998) "Humans will be the first animal species on this planet to cause their own extinction"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7377
Either we reverse it and humans survive, or it kills/culls us and it reverses anyway. I want to know how all the beef farmers are going to be persuaded to change, and what they will produce instead?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11764
Gwenno wrote:
Either we reverse it and humans survive, or it kills/culls us and it reverses anyway. I want to know how all the beef farmers are going to be persuaded to change, and what they will produce instead?


There's a reasonable chance they get substantially reduced due to lab grown meat anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7377
My parents' generation feared that nuclear war would kill us, mine that nuclear power would, but now it may save us?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1859
Gwenno wrote:
My parents' generation feared that nuclear war would kill us, mine that nuclear power would, but now it may save us?


Depends. No sex is going to end japan before climate change does. Korea too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7377
comets wrote:
If religions didn't exist, we would have solved climate change by now, infact i think climate change would not have existed as we would have found a way to clean the air and repair the ozone by now...we were barely moving for the last 5000 years and in the last 100 we jumped to Mach 5 speed...i think it was true whoever said this (read it in a book in 1998) "Humans will be the first animal species on this planet to cause their own extinction"

No doubt the apocalypse will be climate change and the sin of knowledge is fire, so the religious nuts will be smiling smugly when more and more hurricanes batter Florida.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 5880
Gwenno wrote:
comets wrote:
If religions didn't exist, we would have solved climate change by now, infact i think climate change would not have existed as we would have found a way to clean the air and repair the ozone by now...we were barely moving for the last 5000 years and in the last 100 we jumped to Mach 5 speed...i think it was true whoever said this (read it in a book in 1998) "Humans will be the first animal species on this planet to cause their own extinction"

No doubt the apocalypse will be climate change and the sin of knowledge is fire, so the religious nuts will be smiling smugly when more and more hurricanes batter Florida.


like that old saying which i can't remember which says that while the rest of the world tries to stop the world from ending, the religious nuts will be working fast to make it happen so that they can be with their god...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2093
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
My parents' generation feared that nuclear war would kill us, mine that nuclear power would, but now it may save us?


Depends. No sex is going to end japan before climate change does. Korea too.


If ever there was a situation that gave credence to the notion that problems are opportunities..

This is it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5352
Location: STRAYA CUNT!!!
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Promising...

Quote:
It’s nothing much to look at, but the tangle of pipes, pumps, tanks, reactors, chimneys and ducts on a messy industrial estate outside the logging town of Squamish in western Canada could just provide the fix to stop the world tipping into runaway climate change and substitute dwindling supplies of conventional fuel.

It could also make Harvard superstar physicist David Keith, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and oil sands magnate Norman Murray Edwards more money than they could ever dream of.

The idea is grandiose yet simple: decarbonise the global economy by extracting global-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) straight from the air, using arrays of giant fans and patented chemical whizzery; and then use the gas to make clean, carbon-neutral synthetic diesel and petrol to drive the world’s ships, planes and trucks.

The hope is that the combination of direct air capture (DAC), water electrolysis and fuels synthesis used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels can be made to work at a global scale, for little more than it costs to extract and sell fossil fuel today. This would revolutionise the world’s transport industry, which emits nearly one-third of total climate-changing emissions. It would be the equivalent of mechanising photosynthesis.

The individual technologies may not be new, but their combination at an industrial scale would be groundbreaking. Carbon Engineering, the company set up in 2009 by leading geoengineer Keith, with money from Gates and Murray, has constructed a prototype plant, installed large fans, and has been extracting around one tonne of pure CO2 every day for a year. At present it is released back into the air.

But Carbon Engineering (CE) has just passed another milestone. Working with California energy company Greyrock, it has now begun directly synthesising a mixture of petrol and diesel, using only CO2 captured from the air and hydrogen split from water with clean electricity – a process they call Air to Fuels (A2F).

“A2F is a potentially game-changing technology, which if successfully scaled up will allow us to harness cheap, intermittent renewable electricity to drive synthesis of liquid fuels that are compatible with modern infrastructure and engines,” says Geoff Holmes of CE. “This offers an alternative to biofuels and a complement to electric vehicles in the effort to displace fossil fuels from transportation.”

Synthetic fuels have been made from CO2 and H2 before, on a small scale. “But,” Holmes adds, “we think our pilot plant is the first instance of Air to Fuels where all the equipment has large-scale industrial precedent, and thus gives real indication of commercial performance and viability, and leads directly to scale-up and deployment.”

The next step is to raise the money, scale up and then commercialise the process using low-carbon electricity like solar PV (photovoltaics). Company publicity envisages massive walls of extractor fans sited outside cities and on non-agricultural land, supplying CO2 for fuel synthesis, and eventually for direct sequestration.

“A2F is the future,” says Holmes, “because it needs 100 times less land and water than biofuels, and can be scaled up and sited anywhere. But for it to work, it will have to reduce costs to little more than it costs to extract oil today, and – even trickier – persuade countries to set a global carbon price.”

Meanwhile, 4,500 miles away, in a large blue shed on a small industrial estate in the South Yorkshire coalfield outside Sheffield, the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) is experimenting with other ways to produce negative emissions.

Critics say these technologies are unfeasible. Not producing the emissions in the first place would be much cleverer
The UKCCSRC is what remains of Britain’s official foray into carbon capture and storage (CCS), which David Cameron had backed strongly until 2015. £1bn was ringfenced for a competition between large companies to extract CO2 from coal and gas plants and then store it, possibly in old North Sea gas wells. But the plan unravelled as austerity bit, and the UK’s only running CCS pilot plant, at Ferrybridge power station, was abandoned.

The Sheffield laboratory is funded by £2.7m of government money and run by Sheffield University. It is researching different fuels, temperatures, solvents and heating speeds to best capture the CO2 for the next generation of CCS plants, and is capturing 50 tonnes of CO2 a year. And because Britain is phasing out coal power stations, the focus is on achieving negative emissions by removing and storing CO2 emitted from biomass plants, which burn pulverised wood. As the wood has already absorbed carbon while it grows, it is more or less carbon-neutral when burned. If linked to a carbon capture plant, it theoretically removes carbon from the atmosphere.

Known as Beccs (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), this negative emissions technology is seen as vital if the UK is to meet its long-term climate target of an 80% cut in emissions at 1990 levels by 2050, according to UKCCSRC director Professor Jon Gibbins. The plan, he says, is to capture emissions from clusters of major industries, such as refineries and steelworks in places like Teesside, to reduce the costs of transporting and storing it underground.

“Direct air capture is no substitute for using conventional CCS,” says Gibbins. “Cutting emissions from existing sources at the scale of millions of tonnes a year, to stop the CO2 getting into the air in the first place, is the first priority.

“The best use for all negative emission technologies is to offset emissions that are happening now – paid for by the emitters, or by the fossil fuel suppliers. We need to get to net zero emissions before the sustainable CO2 emissions are used up. This is estimated at around 1,000bn tonnes, or around 20-30 years of global emissions based on current trends,” he says. “Having to go to net negative emissions is obviously unfair and might well prove an unfeasible burden for a future global society already burdened by climate change.”

The challenge is daunting. Worldwide manmade emissions must be brought to “net zero” no later than 2090, says the UN’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That means balancing the amount of carbon released by humans with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference.

But that will not be enough. To avoid runaway climate change, emissions must then become “net negative”, with more carbon being removed than emitted. Many countries, including the UK, assume that negative emissions will be deployed at a large scale. But only a handful of CCS and pilot negative-emission plants are running anywhere in the world, and debate still rages over which, if any, technologies should be employed. (A prize of $25m put up by Richard Branson in 2007 to challenge innovators to find a commercially viable way to remove at least 1bn tonnes of atmospheric CO2 a year for 10 years, and keep it out, has still not been claimed – possibly because the public is uncertain about geoengineering.)

The achilles heel of all negative emission technologies is cost. Government policy units assume that they will become economically viable, but the best hope of Carbon Engineering and other direct air extraction companies is to get the price down to $100 a tonne from the current $600. Even then, to remove just 1% of global emissions would cost around $400bn a year, and would need to be continued for ever. Storing the CO2 permanently would cost extra.

Critics say that these technologies are unfeasible. Not using the fossil fuel and not producing the emissions in the first place would be much cleverer than having to find end-of-pipe solutions, say Professor Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and Glen Peters, research director at the Centre for International Climate Research (Cicero) in Norway.

In a recent article in the journal Science, the two climate scientists said they were not opposed to research on negative emission technologies, but thought the world should proceed on the premise that they will not work at scale. Not to do so, they said, would be a “moral hazard par excellence”.

Instead, governments are relying on these technologies to remove hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere. “It is breathtaking,” says Anderson. “By the middle of the century, many of the models assume as much removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by negative emission technologies as is absorbed naturally today by all of the world’s oceans and plants combined. They are not an insurance policy; they are a high-risk gamble with tomorrow’s generations, particularly those living in poor and climatically vulnerable communities, set to pay the price if our high-stakes bet fails to deliver as promised.” According to Anderson, “The beguiling appeal of relying on future negative emission technologies is that they delay the need for stringent and politically challenging policies today – they pass the buck for reducing carbon on to future generations. But if these Dr Strangelove technologies fail to deliver at the planetary scale envisaged, our own children will be forced to endure the consequences of rapidly rising temperatures and a highly unstable climate.”

Kris Milkowski, business development manager at the UKCCSRC, says: “Negative emissions technology is unavoidable and here to stay. We are simply not moving [to cut emissions] fast enough. If we had an endless pile of money, we could potentially go totally renewable energy. But that transition cannot happen overnight. This, I fear, is the only large-scale solution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_fb


I've been reading more and more about companies looking to utilise such technology lately. If it can scale then it would be interesting to see where it goes. Also been looking into food security particularly around projects that are looking to dramatically up the production while reducing the land and water usage. Very interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 7946
Location: Stockholm
No I don't think so We're too stupid and greedy to the point that large swaths of the population are willing to willfully delude themselves for the sake of a few extra dollars in their pocket short term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7377
My way of sampling average knowledge about something, asking the youngest receptionists' opinions, suggests that the media haven't got the message over properly, as they think that veganism and electric cars per se will solve the problem, rather than ceasing meat production and fossil fuel electricity generation. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2268
The problem is bigger than climate change. As a species we're inherently useless.
We're on a path to oblivion and taking everything else around us down too. And we don't care. Maybe we can be upset at the consequences of our lifestyle, but we don't change. We don't give up anything we have, the best we do is pay more for the realisation of the consequences, but we don't actually lift a finger to change for the better.

We produce toxic rubbish and dump it in landfills
Over fish the shit out of the oceans
Pollute fresh water sources.

When we are extinct, we'll have deserved it. Probably the better solution would be a meteorite or a virus mass extinction before we've screwed everything else. Purely as a less selfish extinction event.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, Bing [Bot], Bogbunny, dpedin, DragsterDriver, earl the beaver, etherman, flaggETERNAL, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, iarmhiman, inactionman, Jensrsa, jos, Lenny, Liathroidigloine, madman, Mr. Very Popular, Newsome, obelixtim, Plato'sCave, Risteard, The Native, tiddle, Trostan, Tussock, Wilson's Toffee, Winnie, Wylie Coyote, Yer Man, ZappaMan, zzzz and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group