hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 145 of 149 FirstFirst ... 4595135142143144145146147148 ... LastLast
Results 2,881 to 2,900 of 2966

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #2881
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Man successful in specific industry denies bias in favour of specific industry
    We are successful in a basically all sustainable energy-related technologies, I've got no specific bias in favour of batteries. We own a peaking portfolio, CHP, EfW, wind, solar, biomass, AD. No coal or nuclear and we dont run an interconnector but that's about it.
    But you said you have no customers? So you are not in engineering... Are you just trading investing, lmao?

  2. #2882
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    Event Horizon
    Posts
    7,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    Or just wish away the enviromental impact of strip mining materials for mass building battery farms for REs:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...secret-lithium

    But I'm sure with just enough wishful thinking and innovation there will be a perfectly carbon/enviromental neutral battery Soon TM.
    A typical EV contains about 5-15 kg of Lithium which is enough to last a very very long time. A typical ICE car produces about 5 tons of CO2 per year.

    Lithium is a pretty common element. Right now mining it is the easiest way to get to it (how is this worse than mining coal or drilling for gas or oil?), but researchers are already working on getting it from the sea.
    Lithium mining is generating significant amounts of CO2. But that's not the whole story. Lithium batteries in electric cars also contain cobalt, which is in really limited supply and is only mined from a handful of places. Whilst lithium is arguably a common element, cobalt isn't and the latter is the actual limiting factor.

    Yes, companies are migrating away from cobalt usage, but it isn't really that easy. Overall the whole process of mining lithium and cobalt ending with batteries suitable for EVs is still incredibly polluting and different "studies" are shoved in your face if you dare argue otherwise, which is unfortunate, really. Not to mention people are really expecting EVs to make a difference when vehicle pollution is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things - probably the biggest hopium supply out there.




    Last edited by Cosmin; November 8 2021 at 10:12:41 AM.

  3. #2883
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    Everyfuckingone smarter than some IPCC nerds saying we need more nuclear.

    https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking...climate-change

    To achieve the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C by 2100, the four IPCC model pathways conclude that nuclear generation must increase by:
    +59-106% by 2030
    +98-501% by 2050
    +501% by 2050 for pathway P3
    Though comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production, and land requirement is lower than that of other power sources, the political processes triggered by societal concerns depend on the country-specific means of managing the political debates around technological choices and their environmental impacts," adds the IPCC report.
    Fuck the eggheads, what do they know. Nukular scary, let's strip mine forests so we can roll in electric SUV and plaster every bit of land with panels and big cool fans. And burn some of that sweet Putin fart gas, mmmmmmm. Merkel likes it.

    C H E R N O B Y L
    I like how you read a nuclear lobbyists take of the IPCC report rather than the report itself.

    Chapter 2 of the IPCC report (SR15) sets out 85 of 'possible pathways' to maxing out at a 1.5C gain in temperature. These pathways vary wildly in policy and industry assumptions. In some of them, nuclear's share of the energy mix declines. In others, it grows. The pathways are not recommendations, they are intended descriptively as routes society might take. They do not distinguish pathways with 'good' wider social impacts from 'bad' ones. It's possible that a 1.5C pathway will be terrible for society even while its good for climate change - they are not drawing those kinds of conclusions as its totally outwith their remit.

    All you can really conclude is 'nuclear isnt bad for the climate'. Yeah no shit.

  4. #2884
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Man successful in specific industry denies bias in favour of specific industry
    We are successful in a basically all sustainable energy-related technologies, I've got no specific bias in favour of batteries. We own a peaking portfolio, CHP, EfW, wind, solar, biomass, AD. No coal or nuclear and we dont run an interconnector but that's about it.
    But you said you have no customers? So you are not in engineering... Are you just trading investing, lmao?
    If you dont know what project development is that's your problem.

  5. #2885
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150
    Cobalt is big enough of a deal that bolivia and kongo get couped in the same year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Man successful in specific industry denies bias in favour of specific industry
    We are successful in a basically all sustainable energy-related technologies, I've got no specific bias in favour of batteries. We own a peaking portfolio, CHP, EfW, wind, solar, biomass, AD. No coal or nuclear and we dont run an interconnector but that's about it.
    But you said you have no customers? So you are not in engineering... Are you just trading investing, lmao?
    If you dont know what project development is that's your problem.
    You should develop a sense of scale if 5 years for infrastrucrure programs is too long.

  6. #2886
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    18,867
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Cobalt is big enough of a deal that bolivia and kongo get couped in the same year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Man successful in specific industry denies bias in favour of specific industry
    We are successful in a basically all sustainable energy-related technologies, I've got no specific bias in favour of batteries. We own a peaking portfolio, CHP, EfW, wind, solar, biomass, AD. No coal or nuclear and we dont run an interconnector but that's about it.
    But you said you have no customers? So you are not in engineering... Are you just trading investing, lmao?
    If you dont know what project development is that's your problem.
    You should develop a sense of scale if 5 years for infrastrucrure programs is too long.
    You misunderstood, I meant 5 years technological and industrial development makes cost estimates from 5 years ago entirely obsolete today. The pace of change is such that as little as 2-3 years might mean a substantial two digit percentage change in costs.

  7. #2887
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    You misunderstood, I meant 5 years technological and industrial development makes cost estimates from 5 years ago entirely obsolete today. The pace of change is such that as little as 2-3 years might mean a substantial two digit percentage change in costs.
    Austerity automation thread is two floors down, mate. We know why NPPs aren't getting build, we are asking if cutting costs is worth 10 billion people living and breathing in toxic sludge in 2100.
    Apparently yes if that puts oysters on your table now.
    Last edited by RazoR; November 8 2021 at 01:15:22 PM.

  8. #2888
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    8,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    Everyfuckingone smarter than some IPCC nerds saying we need more nuclear.

    https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking...climate-change

    To achieve the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C by 2100, the four IPCC model pathways conclude that nuclear generation must increase by:
    +59-106% by 2030
    +98-501% by 2050
    +501% by 2050 for pathway P3
    Though comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production, and land requirement is lower than that of other power sources, the political processes triggered by societal concerns depend on the country-specific means of managing the political debates around technological choices and their environmental impacts," adds the IPCC report.
    Fuck the eggheads, what do they know. Nukular scary, let's strip mine forests so we can roll in electric SUV and plaster every bit of land with panels and big cool fans. And burn some of that sweet Putin fart gas, mmmmmmm. Merkel likes it.

    C H E R N O B Y L
    I like how you read a nuclear lobbyists take of the IPCC report rather than the report itself.

    Chapter 2 of the IPCC report (SR15) sets out 85 of 'possible pathways' to maxing out at a 1.5C gain in temperature. These pathways vary wildly in policy and industry assumptions. In some of them, nuclear's share of the energy mix declines. In others, it grows. The pathways are not recommendations, they are intended descriptively as routes society might take. They do not distinguish pathways with 'good' wider social impacts from 'bad' ones. It's possible that a 1.5C pathway will be terrible for society even while its good for climate change - they are not drawing those kinds of conclusions as its totally outwith their remit.

    All you can really conclude is 'nuclear isnt bad for the climate'. Yeah no shit.
    Even if they're nuclear lobbyists I'll take their reading over some corpie shill like you constantly lying how covering every plot of lands with renewables and destroying ecosystems en masse to strip mine shit for battery farms is somehow less damaging than NPPs, despire scientific evidence to the contrary. Not to mention, in reality, instead those imaginary mass battery farms you have gas plants being built.
    Last edited by Venec; November 8 2021 at 01:39:07 PM.

  9. #2889
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,169
    Is that 100% increase in electricity demand taking into account the switch away from personal ICE cars?
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  10. #2890
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    17,192
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    You misunderstood, I meant 5 years technological and industrial development makes cost estimates from 5 years ago entirely obsolete today. The pace of change is such that as little as 2-3 years might mean a substantial two digit percentage change in costs.
    Austerity automation thread is two floors down, mate. We know why NPPs aren't getting build, we are asking if cutting costs is worth 10 billion people living and breathing in toxic sludge in 2100.
    Apparently yes if that puts oysters on your table now.
    Not everyone will be living in toxic sludge. Just those who can't afford not to...
    meh

  11. #2891
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,255


    ITT

  12. #2892
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,113
    Buy bitcoin, avoid a sludge future

  13. #2893
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    4,287
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    You misunderstood, I meant 5 years technological and industrial development makes cost estimates from 5 years ago entirely obsolete today. The pace of change is such that as little as 2-3 years might mean a substantial two digit percentage change in costs.
    Austerity automation thread is two floors down, mate. We know why NPPs aren't getting build, we are asking if cutting costs is worth 10 billion people living and breathing in toxic sludge in 2100.
    Apparently yes if that puts oysters on your table now.
    you see we're literally a minute away from midnight on the big doomsday clock, and that means all you dumbasses need to accept big cuts and a diminished lifestyle. But this thing that let's us have reliable 0 emissions energy is uhhh...too expensive and hard

  14. #2894
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,150

  15. #2895
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Sun would be brilliant however escaping Earth's atmosphere and gravitational well is already really energy consuming. I can't be arsed to do exact math but it would be interesting what is net gain of 1kg of nuclear waste assuming we're sending it to the orbit on a conventional rocket. After that cost should be negligible, just mount some disposable thruster and slingshot around Mercury I guess?

  16. #2896
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    Event Horizon
    Posts
    7,634
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Sun would be brilliant however escaping Earth's atmosphere and gravitational well is already really energy consuming. I can't be arsed to do exact math but it would be interesting what is net gain of 1kg of nuclear waste assuming we're sending it to the orbit on a conventional rocket. After that cost should be negligible, just mount some disposable thruster and slingshot around Mercury I guess?
    Actually it's much more difficult to throw shit into the Sun that it may seem at a first glance. Somebody actually did the math (I would have been surprised if they didn't, tbh).

  17. #2897
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    Event Horizon
    Posts
    7,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Is that 100% increase in electricity demand taking into account the switch away from personal ICE cars?

  18. #2898
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Sun would be brilliant however escaping Earth's atmosphere and gravitational well is already really energy consuming. I can't be arsed to do exact math but it would be interesting what is net gain of 1kg of nuclear waste assuming we're sending it to the orbit on a conventional rocket. After that cost should be negligible, just mount some disposable thruster and slingshot around Mercury I guess?
    Actually it's much more difficult to throw shit into the Sun that it may seem at a first glance. Somebody actually did the math (I would have been surprised if they didn't, tbh).
    Too simplified, he even states he didn't take slingshots into account as too complicated (doh). Also we're not talking about getting rid of all the waste currently stored but asking if there's a net monetary gain in producing energy with current kWh prices and then disposing resulted waste into the Sun. Also remember we're not working on a schedule here, it doesn't matter when it reaches the Sun, so trajectories even more complex than this:



    are not only still on the table, but preferred. As little delta v we spend for the initial budge from earth's orbit the more economically feasible it becomes. But again still the biggest hurdle and cost is getting it to Earth's orbit. There's also a sweet spot with regards to payload where every next gram is going to cost you more and more as it doesn't scale linear (rocket technology, propellant used blah blah blah). So sorry, no that doesn't answer the question fully. But I guess to have that solved on a level I would deem sufficient would require some real academic work. Anyone looking for a topic for their thesis?
    Last edited by rufuske; November 8 2021 at 08:50:24 PM.

  19. #2899
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Man successful in specific industry denies bias in favour of specific industry
    We are successful in a basically all sustainable energy-related technologies, I've got no specific bias in favour of batteries. We own a peaking portfolio, CHP, EfW, wind, solar, biomass, AD. No coal or nuclear and we dont run an interconnector but that's about it.
    But you said you have no customers? So you are not in engineering... Are you just trading investing, lmao?
    If you dont know what project development is that's your problem.
    You don't have a marketing or product. You don't have customers. You don't have engineers.

    So you run a green energy hedge fund? It sure looks like you run a green energy hedge fund from what you're saying.

  20. #2900
    August's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    662
    Put the nuclear waste in a particle accelerator and disintegrate it /smug.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •