hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 123 of 126 FirstFirst ... 2373113120121122123124125126 LastLast
Results 2,441 to 2,460 of 2514

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #2441

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.

  2. #2442
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    Lead by example.

  3. #2443
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,335
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    Lead by example.

  4. #2444
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    It's really not the answer: less pointless consumption would do much more to reduce environmental impact than reducing the population.

    Stop pointless consumption, educate all women and make access to contraception / family planning a universal right. Population flatlines within a generation and standard of living for most people improves.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-says-oxfam

  5. #2445

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    It's really not the answer: less pointless consumption would do much more to reduce environmental impact than reducing the population.

    Stop pointless consumption, educate all women and make access to contraception / family planning a universal right. Population flatlines within a generation and standard of living for most people improves.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-says-oxfam
    But if richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, then wouldn't improving standards of living for people increase carbon emissions? :P.

    Anyway, I am not sure if we need to radically reduce our energy demands. I am thinking nuclear energy in the longer term, with renewables in the shorter term. Reducing pointless consumption sounds good, but that requires a level of censorship I doubt you guys here are willing to accept. A level of censorship far exceeding anything the Church did.

  6. #2446
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    21,059
    The same old right wing posters posting the same old debunk theories

  7. #2447
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    6,521
    But we do need to reduce overall population of our species, just not by murder. This becomes crucial, especially when you remember overall livable space on the planet will be shrinking post 2050s.

    We need to reduce everything else too, energy consumption, our living standards, consumption, actual amount of land we're using etc. These are hard truths few people are willing to accept.
    Last edited by Venec; February 12 2020 at 07:14:53 AM.

  8. #2448
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    It's really not the answer: less pointless consumption would do much more to reduce environmental impact than reducing the population.

    Stop pointless consumption, educate all women and make access to contraception / family planning a universal right. Population flatlines within a generation and standard of living for most people improves.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-says-oxfam
    Dunno if you heard but majority of developed countries struggle with sustainable birth rate and are shrinking at rapid pace. If anything we are doing too good of a job on that front already.

  9. #2449
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    But we do need to reduce overall population of our species, just not by murder. This becomes crucial, especially when you remember overall livable space on the planet will be shrinking post 2050s.
    Wrong, we need to get to space asap. I would be signing for first flight to moon/mars colony.

  10. #2450
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    But we do need to reduce overall population of our species, just not by murder. This becomes crucial, especially when you remember overall livable space on the planet will be shrinking post 2050s.
    Wrong, we need to get to space asap. I would be signing for first flight to moon/mars colony.
    That needs to be done too, but do you honestly believe humans will divert resources to sustaining space colonies when back on Earth people will be standing in bread and water lines?

  11. #2451
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    But we do need to reduce overall population of our species, just not by murder. This becomes crucial, especially when you remember overall livable space on the planet will be shrinking post 2050s.
    Wrong, we need to get to space asap. I would be signing for first flight to moon/mars colony.
    That needs to be done too, but do you honestly believe humans will divert resources to sustaining space colonies when back on Earth people will be standing in bread and water lines?
    No, I don't. But that's the best path to solve all those problems without gulags/concentration camps still, so I sure hope so.

  12. #2452
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    6,521
    To sustain colonies you need to have a stable base back on Earth. There won't be stable base back on Earth when people will be killing themselves over habitable land and resources.

  13. #2453
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    To sustain colonies you need to have a stable base back on Earth. There won't be stable base back on Earth when people will be killing themselves over habitable land and resources.
    And the best way to achieve is to have another gold rush to that tasty moon deuterium and almost every rare metal imaginable in asteroid belts.

  14. #2454
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Liare, again, I have pointed out a consequence of something you said. You misquote that as if I attributed the consequence to you, but that's not happened. You are the one straw-manning, basically, but no matter - let's delve deeper into the flaws of your position!
    no, you have invented a position you assume i hold and then extrapolated from there.

    it's the definition of a strawman, moreover you have STILL not explained where your imaginary energy supply to power all this shit is going to come from, therefore, taking a leaf from your own book, i will from here on in assume that you're just going to burn more fossil fuels to create your hydrogen economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    It didn't exist. Now it does: Ostende. You fail to address that, or the Australia-Japan examples, or the superbe papers that Kay brought up (the one about . Are you just confirmation-biasing them out of existence? Well done! I applaud your scientific approach. You also insist on not proposing the alternative. I'm starting to suspect that deep down you're quite fracking and drilling happy.
    i didn't address it because it's completely irrelevant to my point, we've been industrially producing hydrogen for 70 years now.

    at no point have i claimed green hydrogen production is impossible, i have said it's inherent energy inefficiency means it's unviable as a replacement for other technologies in terms of energy storage and as a 1-to-1 replacement for fossil fuel in transportation. nothing at Oostende changes that, by their own damn admission a lot of the project is in large part a feasibility study to work out the realities of the concept.

    i don't need to propose a alternative, because we're already deploying it in the shape of renewables coupled with hydro-based storage, integrated continental grids and electric propulsion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Now THAT is a strawman! Kudos. So for you what's rational? To keep burning carbs while we wait for the perfect solution out of your lab? What, are we waiting just 5 more years for fusion?
    what the fuck are you on about ? did you even read what i said ? it doesn't look like you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Sure, there's more burning to be done in the short term. But then we solve the bigger problem. As we phase this stuff in the efficiency improves as it always does with entrant techs, through gradual engineering improvements and through economies of scale.
    you're still not addressing the core of my argument, the underlying processes are energy inefficient assuming ideal conditions, we've been over this already.

    and you cannot "economies of scale" and "gradual engineering improvements" the underlying physics away, Hydrogen production is a order of magnitude less energy efficient than simply pumping liquid from one reservoir to another and accepting the transmission losses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Or we can burn as much in twice the years, and then keep burning until the sea comes to our doors. And this conveniently forgets about the BRICS' economies kicking up. But at least the solution will be perfect once you find it!
    so why precisely are you touting a technology that will, according to a spot of napkin maths, effectively double power consumption on the electric generation side to meet current demands ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Improvements can only happen outside of the lab, so it's time to get out, even if some postgrad with confirmation bias doesn't like the idea.
    you have no idea how engineering works do you ? you prove the feasibility in a model, construct a working prototype in the lab and then deploy.

    the whole "Hydrogen economy" fails literately at the point where you evaluate the underlying model, not because of the physics involved, but because of the constraints it has to operate under. if your model requires increased energy consumption at a time where we need to stabilize if not shrink that ITS NOT FUCKING VIABLE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boltorano View Post


    Seems appropriate to this discussion. Smoke detectors drawing 65,000x the power when connected to the wall vs the 9V battery backup.

    All to save $0.30 on manufacturing costs.
    this is a much much larger problem than people realize, simply put the underlying motivations driving industrial design are completely fucked to the point where some designs are functionally designed to maximize power consumption for no reason what so fucking ever other than to save pennies.

    there are no incentives to optimize for power factor and consumption outside a tiny number of very specific applications, leading to idiocy like the stuff seen here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Varcaus View Post
    The same old right wing posters posting the same old debunk theories
    why not flat out call them the genocide brigade? they're basically advocating it at this point.
    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. #2455
    Yankunytjatjara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,725
    Aaaaand Liare hand-waves away a study, which happened to dismantle his EROI based position, by dropping any mention of EROI. Nicely done mr confirmation bias! Way to prove your nature.

    Anyway,

    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    at no point have i claimed green hydrogen production is impossible, i have said it's inherent energy inefficiency means it's unviable as a replacement for other technologies in terms of energy storage and as a 1-to-1 replacement for fossil fuel in transportation. nothing at Oostende changes that, by their own damn admission a lot of the project is in large part a feasibility study to work out the realities of the concept.

    i don't need to propose a alternative, because we're already deploying it in the shape of renewables coupled with hydro-based storage, integrated continental grids and electric propulsion.
    Not enough. It's not happening quick enough - which has the consequence of "and in the meanwhile what, you keep burning carbs" that makes what I told you not a strawman - and on top of this, you are lacking vision.

    Sure, grids and HVAC lines have their place, to regulate the regional market but hydro storage is geographically/topologically limited and grid losses are distance based. (plus all the issues with grid distortion). Wind and sun are kind of the same in Germany and France - you don't fix that with your precious HV lines. What is needed is a planetary. 1, 2, 3k TWh/year from Africa/Australia to Europe. No, that's not much, considering that almost 30GW of PV/eolic just in Europe in 2019 despite lower sun energy and especially despite COAL AND GAS SUBSIDIES being omnipresent on the continent!!!!! You like talking about resources. What if those same subsidies were put to renewables instead?

    So that's where the Ostende project comes in. To show that you can produce the energy where the efficiency sort of does not matter, because of sun abundance somewhere else and wind abundance sometime else - like last weekend for storm Clara. And that then, by not being constrained to geographically/capacity limited hydro, and all kinds of issues grids, you can transport and use the energy elsewhere/later. Which is exactly the kind of convenience that has led to oil and gas becoming the main factor of our civilisation so far.
    Last edited by Yankunytjatjara; February 12 2020 at 10:45:50 AM.
    My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude!
    Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors

  16. #2456
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    2,668
    Aww, look at you two going at it:



    Adorable

  17. #2457
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,821
    You’ve been Liared Yank!

  18. #2458

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    It's really not the answer: less pointless consumption would do much more to reduce environmental impact than reducing the population.

    Stop pointless consumption, educate all women and make access to contraception / family planning a universal right. Population flatlines within a generation and standard of living for most people improves.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-says-oxfam
    Dunno if you heard but majority of developed countries struggle with sustainable birth rate and are shrinking at rapid pace. If anything we are doing too good of a job on that front already.
    It doesn't really matter what the developed countries do if everyone else is still growing. I believe I linked this already but:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

    Combined TFR for the planet is at 2.4, so still a net growth. Which is not in itself a problem, because there is room and resources to relocate people from the southeast to the northwest, but that means the 10% sharing with the 90% and that's not exactly the way our political winds are blowing lately.

  19. #2459
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas Quaan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    We need to radically reduce our energy demands as a species.
    Fewer people. Let's be honest, we are all thinking it.
    It's really not the answer: less pointless consumption would do much more to reduce environmental impact than reducing the population.

    Stop pointless consumption, educate all women and make access to contraception / family planning a universal right. Population flatlines within a generation and standard of living for most people improves.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ons-says-oxfam
    Dunno if you heard but majority of developed countries struggle with sustainable birth rate and are shrinking at rapid pace. If anything we are doing too good of a job on that front already.
    It doesn't really matter what the developed countries do if everyone else is still growing. I believe I linked this already but:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

    Combined TFR for the planet is at 2.4, so still a net growth. Which is not in itself a problem, because there is room and resources to relocate people from the southeast to the northwest, but that means the 10% sharing with the 90% and that's not exactly the way our political winds are blowing lately.
    People call not enslaving the dark races anymore and them standing up and having a voice as literally oppression and white genocide and other dumb shit like “replacement”, so don’t hold your breath.
    meh

  20. #2460
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Venec View Post
    But we do need to reduce overall population of our species, just not by murder. This becomes crucial, especially when you remember overall livable space on the planet will be shrinking post 2050s.
    Wrong, we need to get to space asap. I would be signing for first flight to moon/mars colony.
    That needs to be done too, but do you honestly believe humans will divert resources to sustaining space colonies when back on Earth people will be standing in bread and water lines?
    Yes, actually, we already have large portions of the planet living without clean water and starving. Unlesss you meant bread lines in the west, then... Probably yes still. Capitalists will blame the government, give to chairity, and wash their hands of the poor.

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
  •