hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 140 of 149 FirstFirst ... 4090130137138139140141142143 ... LastLast
Results 2,781 to 2,800 of 2963

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #2781
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dzajic View Post
    Ouch, took a look at our "public but only for qualified professionals, so not really public" document on projected climate change economic damages. I guess most people heard about that famous Nobel laureate who is prognosticating something like 2.5% cumulative GDP loss by end of century and all governments are taking that as gospel? While I'm certain our people are still sugarcoating things, but they are saying 25% total cumulative economic loss over next fifteen years.

    25% loss to your country’s economy or the global economy? If it’s for your country, maybe it’s because it over-relies on tourism or other sectors that are more sensitive to climate change.
    Global. Though I was off by 4 years, its not next 15 years, its up to 2040. I just messed in my head and though 2040 is 15ish years away. Cumulative loss of the global economic output of around 25%. And getting more significant past 2040. If everyone keeps siting on their butts and doing nothing but talk.

    I checked and its actually available on internet publicly, they even dropped the "not for plebs" disclaimer. But if I linked you you would know exactly where I work I wish to pretend to have still some anonymity left on the internet.

  2. #2782

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    5,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

  3. #2783
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.
    Nuclear plants are massively over engineered. Just drop the waste in the ocean.
    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.

  4. #2784
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.
    Nuclear plants are massively over engineered. Just drop the waste in the ocean.
    In case you were not sarcastic.

    If you drop it on the continental shelf you are going to poison the fisheries and ruin ecosystems. Putting it in durable storage in the deep ocean subduction zones would maybe cost as much as surface deep underground storage.

  5. #2785
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,102
    What's the cost of storing all this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
    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.

  6. #2786
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.
    Ill believe it when I see it.


    

  7. #2787
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    4,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable.
    This simply isn't true. Wind generators at sea provide reliable power for the same amount of days per year as a nuclear power plant. Both have periods where they won't produce power (although you can usually predict nuclear maintenance much earlier of course), so in both cases you need something else that can fill in the gaps during those times. Filling in gaps is the only reason we can't switch to 100% renewable without fall-backs right now, and as Lallante attests chances are high that problem will be solved long before a nuclear plant is written off.

  8. #2788
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.
    Ill believe it when I see it.
    you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?
    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.

  9. #2789
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.
    Ill believe it when I see it.
    you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?
    How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?


    

  10. #2790
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.
    Ill believe it when I see it.
    you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?
    How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?
    Lol this is some angry simping for fossil fuel

  11. #2791
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

    Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.
    Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.
    Ill believe it when I see it.
    you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?
    How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?
    Lol this is some angry simping for fossil fuel
    simping for fossil fuel by being pro nuclear? this is your brain on hot takes jack

  12. #2792
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,307
    A quick search shows that 17% of Denmark's electrity is imported, mostly from Sweden and Germany. Denmark also burns a lot of garbage and fossil fuels in their district heating systems that also generates a small amount of electrity as well.

    Denmark is also an oil and gas producer thanks to the North Sea fields but like most of the North Sea that gas and oil will become unviable by 2050.

  13. #2793

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    775
    Last edited by Lucas Quaan; October 16 2021 at 08:51:39 AM.

  14. #2794
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,325
    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. #2795
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,852
    If McConnell could be removed from the picture, I'm sure some Republicans would be willing to back the measure.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...
    Johns Hopkins CSSE COVID-19 Dashboard

  16. #2796
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,325
    reminder that the measure in question is like taking a piss in the ocean and expecting the tides to rise.
    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.

  17. #2797
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    If McConnell could be removed from the picture, I'm sure some Republicans would be willing to back the measure.
    Manchin and Sinema are best examples of "moderate Republicans" one can find, and they are insistent of gutting anything meaningful from that bill, not just climate change related stuff, but child support and other communist crap like that.

  18. #2798

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    5,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    Here's a German study which was just published, looking at nuclear power as a feasable means to combate climate change (hint: it's not). Scroll down for a longer English summary.
    https://zenodo.org/record/5573719

  19. #2799

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    8,306
    Nuclear power might be the only way to stop the planet dying, it just would need to be applied in really intense bursts.

  20. #2800
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...
    Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

    But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

    Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.
    The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.
    It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

    Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

    And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)
    Here's a German study which was just published, looking at nuclear power as a feasable means to combate climate change (hint: it's not). Scroll down for a longer English summary.
    https://zenodo.org/record/5573719
    Germany is bringing online coal plants to fight global warming. It should pipe the fuck down.


    

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
  •