hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 65 of 84 FirstFirst ... 15556263646566676875 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,300 of 1662

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #1281

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    hidden costs
    These aren't hidden costs. I quoted levelised costs for a reason. Unfortunately there are no numbers for German Nuclear because as a nation you've all decided to pretend nuclear power doesn't exist. Looking at any other nation will unsurprisingly yield exactly the ranking I described.

    Alright, please enlighten me.
    Nuclear fuel sources are functionally unlimited. There, consider yourself enlightened.

    So we do have ways, but we don't have ways? Gotcha ...
    Don't be dense. We have ways, people just don't like being near them because of an inexplicable fear of anything with "nuclear" in the name. I'd be willing to bet the ecological impact of grid-scale wind or hydro would far outstrip the impact of digging a fuckoff great big hole and dumping all the waste down it.

    Or burning it all in an ITER, but that's eternally 25 years away.

    You need to redirect your inquiry to institues like Stanford University or Deutsches Institut zur Wirtschaftsförderung, which calculated them. Not me. I leave that to the experts, ya know.
    [citation needed]

  2. #1282
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    it's not like Standford is the place to go if you're looking for renewable expertise anyway. you will want to talk to AAU and DTU about windmills and there's a couple of chinese universities who hyperspecialize in solar cells. if i remember correctly, they, and that german institution i am not even going to try to pronounce, basically went with "yea, we can like trivially scale production capacity infinitely with no problems what so ever" to hit those conclusions.

    and the world doesn't work like that, the material sciences and technology that goes into molding windmill wings alone is pretty impressive and not trivially scaleable.
    Last edited by Liare; March 11 2019 at 02:02:47 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  3. #1283
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,607
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; March 11 2019 at 02:53:25 PM.

  4. #1284
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    We really should be worrying about greenhouse gases ATM. Esp. CO2 (hurr) but also methane in which meat industry and rice farming are big culprits.

  5. #1285
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.


    

  6. #1286
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  7. #1287
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    Yes lets rather die off. Are you mental?


    

  8. #1288
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

    Use Thorium and the tinpot dictator can only threaten a dirty bomb... which they can already do so that escalated nothing.

  9. #1289
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/20...nd-prepare-for

    "Geo-engineering" is a misnomer. It would be more appropriate to call these attempts at planetary remodeling by another name: geo-tweaking or geo-finessing or geo-begging. These terms better indicate how puny civilization's powers are relative to giant forces such as the chemistry of the oceans, the balance of the atmosphere, and the interplay among millions of species.

  10. #1290
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

    Use Thorium and the tinpot dictator can only threaten a dirty bomb... which they can already do so that escalated nothing.
    oh look, testbed reactor, no scalable industrial design and no clear roadmap to one.

    i'd rather pump money into ITER tbh, they're closer to having a deployable design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Yeah nuclear is way worse than renewables and probably even fossil fuels especially if you disregard the environmental devastation and vast lakes of mildly radioactive and carcinogenic chemical waste produced in the 3rd world as a byproduct of the factories making renewable energy systems of course.

    Basically if you aren't running a water mill and living from organic subsistence farming traditional hunter gatherer you're probably fucking up the planet in some way.
    the sticky problem is still in deployment, would you hand a nuclear plant over to some tinpot dictator in central africa, knowing it's possible to get it to produce weapons grade material ?

    to say nothing of the time it takes to build the damn things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Truth be told we will have to resort to some sort of geoengineering at this point to solve GW. I honestly doubt we can do anything else that would be enough at this point.
    the risks are enormous, the returns nebulous and the people pushing for it are dubious.
    Yes lets rather die off. Are you mental?
    no, i am arguing for adaptation instead of trying to save the titanic.

    the ship is going to sink, let's save who and what we can and go from there, nuclear has it's place in that, but it's not center stage.
    Last edited by Liare; March 11 2019 at 08:08:32 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #1291
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    ITER is 50 years away. Forget about it.


    

  12. #1292
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    ITER is 50 years away. Forget about it.
    so is basically every thorium design that is not a lab-design or a recycled older design with significant safety issues attached.


    here, have some fun content, pay attention to the thickness statistics now, the party starts once the arctic goes ice free.

    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  13. #1293
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    So start building nukes. We have a feasible reactor design ( several! ) and fuel is abundant. Or we can fuck around with renewables which dont scale and in general dont do anything. We have options but we are limiting ourselves for god knows what reason...


    

  14. #1294
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    So start building nukes. We have a feasible reactor design ( several! ) and fuel is abundant. Or we can fuck around with renewables which dont scale and in general dont do anything. We have options but we are limiting ourselves for god knows what reason...
    bringing a 400 MW offshore windmill park online takes 14 months, a equivalent nuclear reactor takes 12 years, Hinkley point C for comparison started planning in 2008 with construction starting last year and expected completion in 6 years.

    nuclear is the one with the scalability problem Zeekar, specifically in terms of how long it takes to get it build.

    oh sure, you can toss all the safety precautions off and cut that time down significantly, but i wish you the best of luck selling that one to the public.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #1295
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Alright, please enlighten me.
    Nuclear fuel sources are functionally unlimited. There, consider yourself enlightened.
    Could you explain this a bit?

    I tried googling for this but the best I got to was someone arguing that breeder reactors (of which there are a handful in existence, perhaps?) could use all the uranium we mine, instead of just the enriched uranium, and even more, use the depleted uranium from the spent nuclear fuel too. Is that what you are arguing for? We'd just have to give up any nuclear proliferation treaties, though (as it produces plutonium)?

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  16. #1296
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,607
    WRT geoengineering I think iron seeding the ocean to trigger phytoplankton blooms might contribute to reducing global co2 levels

  17. #1297
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Alright, please enlighten me.
    Nuclear fuel sources are functionally unlimited. There, consider yourself enlightened.
    Could you explain this a bit?

    I tried googling for this but the best I got to was someone arguing that breeder reactors (of which there are a handful in existence, perhaps?) could use all the uranium we mine, instead of just the enriched uranium, and even more, use the depleted uranium from the spent nuclear fuel too. Is that what you are arguing for? We'd just have to give up any nuclear proliferation treaties, though (as it produces plutonium)?
    There is enough uranium in the oceans that the sun would go out before we ran out of fuel.

    @Liare then build 10 at once not one at the time... Not even mentioning that offshore wind plants are very location specific and the 400 MW is all in all jack shit.


    

  18. #1298
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    WRT geoengineering I think iron seeding the ocean to trigger phytoplankton blooms might contribute to reducing global co2 levels
    the idea of just triggering massive algae blooms at random is a bit iffy, there is a lot of scope for unintended side effects in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Alright, please enlighten me.
    Nuclear fuel sources are functionally unlimited. There, consider yourself enlightened.
    Could you explain this a bit?

    I tried googling for this but the best I got to was someone arguing that breeder reactors (of which there are a handful in existence, perhaps?) could use all the uranium we mine, instead of just the enriched uranium, and even more, use the depleted uranium from the spent nuclear fuel too. Is that what you are arguing for? We'd just have to give up any nuclear proliferation treaties, though (as it produces plutonium)?
    There is enough uranium in the oceans that the sun would go out before we ran out of fuel.

    @Liare then build 10 at once not one at the time... Not even mentioning that offshore wind plants are very location specific and the 400 MW is all in all jack shit.
    nuclear reactors are also location specific, they need access to large bodies of water for coolant and emergency purposes, ideally large bodies of water nobody is actually dependent upon for drinking. and Zeekar, you don't just build nuclear powerplants, there is a lot of specialized engineering work that goes into the process especially around the reactor cores, you cannot just scale that to infinity at the drop of a hatt, much like you cannot scale wind turbine production to infinity at the drop of a hat.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #1299
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,395
    The chinese are pulling it off quite decently tho


    

  20. #1300
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    The chinese are pulling it off quite decently tho
    yes, let's draw inspiration from China, a place where they routinely build entire cities and just let them fill up from the countryside, where they in turn have the advantage of access to hundreds of years of knowledge about infrastructure placement and urban planning.
    and just retroactively apply that to densely populated europe and imagine that nothing could ever possibly go wrong as we build hundreds of nuclear reactors, all done by the lowest bidder and a significant chunk of whom will be run by private enterprise in a decidedly unsafe manner in the name of profit margins in a time of increasingly unstable weather patterns and with large scale shifts in population on the mid-term horizon as a result of that.

    nothing could ever possibly go wrong here.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

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
  •