hey posted:it always baffles me that people never consider the most powerful industry in the world, oil&gas, when it comes to the failure of creating alternative energies. And everytime leftists argue against nuclear energy it's always from such a first world perspective. How the hell are developing countries going to power their industry and urban areas if it isn't renewables? fucking solar panels? lol
Nuclear is dead now though. fukushima drived the last nail in the coffin. Natural gas is the future. The pipe dream that we can power the world on solar panels and wind mills is fucking ludicrous. I don't give a shit though, I'll be laughing straight to the bank once gas prices soar.
the paper i linked it by a ex-Tienanmen square liberal maoist turned economist
also renweables have set in limits due to science which literally cannot be overcome
the world is going to have to redistribute how it allocates power but that amount of power used is going to be less
that is literally the correct argument and avoiding it allows us to continue technological fetishism while ignoring that conundrum which will actually force the fact we need to redistribute energy use
till that point we are sticking within ecological modernisation and playing the market rules
also its child politics to think fukishima broke nuclear power, that was just a convinent excuse because they cost loads and pretty much are always shit
the world is going to have to redistribute how it allocates power but that amount of power used is going to be less
Not necessarily, if people want to cover half the saharan desert in solar panels they might just do that.
What you might be trying to say is "not everyone is going to reach an AmeriKKKan standard of living", which is true for now but population is going to collapse in a few centuries making a lot more land available.
Edited by mustang19 ()
Edited by mustang19 ()
mustang19 posted:Not necessarily, if people want to cover half the saharan desert in solar panels they might just do that.
What you might be trying to say is "not everyone is going to reach an AmeriKKKan standard of living", which is true for now but population is going to collapse in a few centuries making a lot more land available.
apart from the fact its intermittent, would require massive transit lines or uses wank batteries so we wouldn't be able to disable the majority of our power infrastructure never mind the fact that the cost of constantly ruining plants back on and off again would be mega wasteful as well
the point about Americas standard of living is a given but my actual point is that we may be reaching already above or at the peak of our maximum sustainable energy production and therefore we need to start working within lower constrains till we find a way to expand that supply or can improve energy efficiency beyond the perceived current limits
Superabound posted:global energy scarcity is a total myth. well run out of arable farmland and all die in food riots long before we run out of juice to power our Google Glasses
we have enough energy just not enough fuel and for sure not enough clean fuel you doofus
p.s. though your right the ecological crisis is multifaceted and its wrong to ever reifiy it just as climate change for example since its all the crisis interacting with the entire world at the same time
apart from the fact its intermittent, would require massive transit lines or uses wank batteries so we wouldn't be able to disable the majority of our power infrastructure never mind the fact that the cost of constantly ruining plants back on and off again would be mega wasteful as well
The infrastructure is already being installed, eg KACARE in Saudi Arabia, and power is not intermittent over millions of square miles of desert. Fluctuating, yes, but not particularly more than other energy sources. But even assuming it doesn't work you could build shittons of windfarms, or stop wasting ~1/2 of farmland growing beef and cheeseburgers and cover it with panels. Living standards will fall because of the hassle and capital costs, and none of this means people will actually do it, but in terms of sustaining energy production at the same level, yes, that's practical to do.
mustang19 posted:The infrastructure is already being installed, eg KACARE in Saudi Arabia, and power is not intermittent over millions of square miles of desert. Fluctuating, yes, but not particularly more than other energy sources. But even assuming it doesn't work you could build shittons of windfarms, or stop wasting ~1/2 of farmland growing beef and cheeseburgers and cover it with panels. Living standards will fall, and none of this means people will actually do it, but in terms of energy sustaining production at the same level, yes, that's practical to do.
awesome
do you have any articles/papers etc on this I thought the variability for both wind and solar was rubbish to the point that they didn't scale well for large scale use especially with long transmission lines
awesome
do you have any articles/papers etc on this
I haven't researched it much but here is an interesting talk. I usually hate TED for their milquetoastism but here it is.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables.html
I thought the variability for both wind and solar was rubbish to the point that they didn't scale well for large scale use especially with long transmission lines
http://enr.construction.com/news/powerIndus/archives/080109d.asp
Also here's some stuff if you want to read about long (900km+) lines with 25% power loss.
As long as voltage is sufficiently high it becomes easier to move power over bigger infrastructures. If you were to hook a car battery to a mainline it wouldn't get very far. If you pool dozens of powerplants to build potential, things get easier in proportion to the size of your voltage source. This is a rare case of economies of scale actually helping things in engineering. A lot of the claims of long distance power transmission being infeasible are based on examples from low voltage lines that were never meant to be used in that way.
Edited by mustang19 ()
mustang19 posted:here's the TED talk that my opinion is based on and here's a link i just found
Not that nuclear is likely to be deployed at the kind of scales necessary to cut carbon emissions, even excluding safety concerns the price alone is enough to hold it back in this age of austerity.
Nope, the most likely energy supply for the coming century is tar sands and oil shale. Which kind of sucks since if we release all the carbon stored in the Canadian tar sands the world could conceivably end up too hot for photosynthesis to occur at the tropics. I don't want responsibility for that world.
Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
The dead bodies of millions of Africans and South Asians washing ashore from the climate famines will spoil beachgoing for years.
Squalid posted:While creating a purely sustainable energy grid is, at least according to some engineers, technically feasible, at present the discussion is almost purely academic and there is serious debate over how currently implemented systems based on wind and solar energy have actually performed. There have been no serious attempts to create an integrated system on the kind of scale that could overcome daily variations in wind speed and solar receipt.
That is kind of what the papers I have been reading are discussing so send over anything on this as well please.
The lark I have been reading has lacked in detail on to what extent it considers the limitations technical or based in evidence of their use. It seems to combine the two but while dropping hints about each side specifically, so everything is excellent.
Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
read more about commodity chains
also erratic weather + changing temperatures will cause dramatic stress on any geophysical structure even if its in a less catastrophic way in the core but even then its arguably because they have the ability to use capital intensive technology to fix it more than anything else
Squalid posted:While creating a purely sustainable energy grid is, at least according to some engineers, technically feasible, at present the discussion is almost purely academic and there is serious debate over how currently implemented systems based on wind and solar energy have actually performed. There have been no serious attempts to create an integrated system on the kind of scale that could overcome daily variations in wind speed and solar receipt.
Not that nuclear is likely to be deployed at the kind of scales necessary to cut carbon emissions, even excluding safety concerns the price alone is enough to hold it back in this age of austerity.
yeah i mean, from the trans&distribution side we're still upgrading the relaying from those old electromechanical things that look like they belong in a museum. but the idea is that "smart" substations will be able to handle the loads of wind farms etc more efficiently
cant be done without govt money, it's like several million per substation. there are around 800 just in chicago, for ex
SovietFriends posted:Squalid posted:While creating a purely sustainable energy grid is, at least according to some engineers, technically feasible, at present the discussion is almost purely academic and there is serious debate over how currently implemented systems based on wind and solar energy have actually performed. There have been no serious attempts to create an integrated system on the kind of scale that could overcome daily variations in wind speed and solar receipt.
That is kind of what the papers I have been reading are discussing so send over anything on this as well please.
The lark I have been reading has lacked in detail on to what extent it considers the limitations technical or based in evidence of their use. It seems to combine the two but while dropping hints about each side specifically, so everything is excellent.
I recently graduated and haven't studied this stuff intensively for a few semesters, so I don't really have any reading material at hand and haven't even cared to look into the issues for a couple years. I just can't care anymore about the details of anyone's fantasies, although I'm willing to die fighting for one with enough support. I think I'll let the engineers handle whatever challenges a specific plan presents. Although when a plan involves taking steps backwards, for example Germany's current commitment to shut down their nuclear facilities which has so far increased their reliance on fossil fuels, that's when we need to ask if we're really headed in the right direction.
Superabound posted:lookit all that third world sun
I'd appreciate it if the tone of your posting could reflect your ignorance of the issues, it would be unfortunate if someone were convinced that any actual understanding stood behind your empty bravado.
In case anyone was confused those pictures demonstrate absolutely nothing
Squalid posted:While creating a purely sustainable energy grid is, at least according to some engineers, technically feasible, at present the discussion is almost purely academic and there is serious debate over how currently implemented systems based on wind and solar energy have actually performed. There have been no serious attempts to create an integrated system on the kind of scale that could overcome daily variations in wind speed and solar receipt.
well just imagine how large the daily variations in hydrocarbon receipt must have been before we spent trillions upon trillions of dollars and millions of human lives on the infrastructure and international shipping it completely and unsustainably relies on
Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
the best thing about solar is that the Third World gets the most of it, and also has the lowest and most reasonable energy needs, therefore with a little effort and investment in a solar based energy economy theyd be able to just sit back and watch the Northern Latitards murder each other as they run out of juice and above sea-level land, and use their unneeded petroleum reserves as issued scrip to leverage their way into the new First World dominance
Squalid posted:Superabound posted:lookit all that third world sun
I'd appreciate it if the tone of your posting could reflect your ignorance of the issues, it would be unfortunate if someone were convinced that any actual understanding stood behind your empty bravado.
In case anyone was confused those pictures demonstrate absolutely nothing
it demonstrates that one of the main reasons behind First World Industry's myriad intentional and manufactured impediments to solar are based on the simple fact that transitioning to solar would be of greatest benefit to the Third World, due to reasons i mentioned in the above post (more sun, more land, lower energy needs) and also because it is a 100% non-blockadable, non-supply chain disruptible resource. Third World countries also have a lot of the global mineral reserves needed to build the panels in the first place (although there have been many new breakthroughs in solar technologies that do no rely on precious metals)
swirlsofhistory posted:Goethestein posted:
the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
The dead bodies of millions of Africans and South Asians washing ashore from the climate famines will spoil beachgoing for years.
australia's political debate is still dominated by the 30,000 or so sri lankans, iranians and afghans arriving on the north west coast seeking asylum each year. The opposition's policy is literally "Stop The Boats" and they're going to win and i'm intrigued about how they're going to do that, they might even withdraw from the UN refugee convention which will certainly make us look like petty parochial racists.
either way it's fun to imagine how the debate would be different if they were white south africans coming by yacht from Durban.
SovietFriends posted:Goethestein posted:
the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
read more about commodity chains
also erratic weather + changing temperatures will cause dramatic stress on any geophysical structure even if its in a less catastrophic way in the core but even then its arguably because they have the ability to use capital intensive technology to fix it more than anything else
the boy has cried wolf here too many times: every heatwave or bushfire or flood is apparently the result of climate change and the green types go into hysterics like these things never existed before 1900. Hurricane Sandy saw the same thing: plenty of more severe hurricanes had landed that far north before but we have to hear about how Americans bought this on themselves (like a rape victim) as punishment for their Carbon sins, ridiculous.
"But they're getting more severe, the insurance claims keep rising and rising!"
yeah because there's more people and stuff around doofuses
i'm not too worried anyway: Australia feeds twice as many foreigners as it does Australians. Appealing to the self interest of westerners to stop 'climate change' is dumb, they'll be fine.
swirlsofhistory posted:Goethestein posted:
the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
The dead bodies of millions of Africans and South Asians washing ashore from the climate famines will spoil beachgoing for years.
doesn't stop the italians lol
Superabound posted:Squalid posted:Superabound posted:lookit all that third world sun
I'd appreciate it if the tone of your posting could reflect your ignorance of the issues, it would be unfortunate if someone were convinced that any actual understanding stood behind your empty bravado.
In case anyone was confused those pictures demonstrate absolutely nothingit demonstrates that one of the main reasons behind First World Industry's myriad intentional and manufactured impediments to solar are based on the simple fact that transitioning to solar would be of greatest benefit to the Third World, due to reasons i mentioned in the above post (more sun, more land, lower energy needs) and also because it is a 100% non-blockadable, non-supply chain disruptible resource. Third World countries also have a lot of the global mineral reserves needed to build the panels in the first place (although there have been many new breakthroughs in solar technologies that do no rely on precious metals)
I know this fits perfectly with a lot of themes we like to play with here at the rhizzone but it's also completely insane, like rambly Glen Beck Monologue or Alex Jones satanist conspiracy level crazy
Ironicwarcriminal posted:SovietFriends posted:Goethestein posted:
the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
read more about commodity chains
also erratic weather + changing temperatures will cause dramatic stress on any geophysical structure even if its in a less catastrophic way in the core but even then its arguably because they have the ability to use capital intensive technology to fix it more than anything elsethe boy has cried wolf here too many times: every heatwave or bushfire or flood is apparently the result of climate change and the green types go into hysterics like these things never existed before 1900. Hurricane Sandy saw the same thing: plenty of more severe hurricanes had landed that far north before but we have to hear about how Americans bought this on themselves (like a rape victim) as punishment for their Carbon sins, ridiculous.
"But they're getting more severe, the insurance claims keep rising and rising!"
yeah because there's more people and stuff around doofuses
i'm not too worried anyway: Australia feeds twice as many foreigners as it does Australians. Appealing to the self interest of westerners to stop 'climate change' is dumb, they'll be fine.
Didn't you post a thread last Australian spring in which you made fun of weathermen for predicting an unusually hot summer when temperatures were slightly below average at the time of your posting, and then Australia went on to have the hottest summer on record, so far from normal they had to add a new color to their temperature maps? Not that I care about the partisans crying global warming every heat wave but lol
though in their is probably an element that the capitalist narrative about the ecological crisis cannot be fully trusted
Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
half of the coastal cities are underwater: a moderate impact
australia's political debate is still dominated by the 30,000 or so sri lankans, iranians and afghans arriving on the north west coast seeking asylum each year. The opposition's policy is literally "Stop The Boats" and they're going to win and i'm intrigued about how they're going to do that, they might even withdraw from the UN refugee convention which will certainly make us look like petty parochial racists.
either way it's fun to imagine how the debate would be different if they were white south africans coming by yacht from Durban.
yeah imagine if australians seemed racist to most ppl lol
Superabound posted:Squalid posted:Superabound posted:lookit all that third world sun
I'd appreciate it if the tone of your posting could reflect your ignorance of the issues, it would be unfortunate if someone were convinced that any actual understanding stood behind your empty bravado.
In case anyone was confused those pictures demonstrate absolutely nothingit demonstrates that one of the main reasons behind First World Industry's myriad intentional and manufactured impediments to solar are based on the simple fact that transitioning to solar would be of greatest benefit to the Third World, due to reasons i mentioned in the above post (more sun, more land, lower energy needs) and also because it is a 100% non-blockadable, non-supply chain disruptible resource. Third World countries also have a lot of the global mineral reserves needed to build the panels in the first place (although there have been many new breakthroughs in solar technologies that do no rely on precious metals)
yeah im sure its cuz they hate browns and not cuz they fucking love money
thirdplace posted:carbon credits would be a financial sector scam of almost unprecedented scale, that's what's driving literally all neoliberal promotion of global warmg
to be fair entire sections of the capitalist class fawn over new technology to lead another era of accumulation and green tech is one of the leading categories
in part that should be considered separate from the financial sector since they are easy to reify especially since i can't imagine we have anyone here who didn't grow up in a financially configured era of capitalism
VoxNihili posted:Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
half of the coastal cities are underwater: a moderate impact
the upper end of predicted sea level rise by 2100 is about two meters. this would be annoying but survivable for every US city other than maybe new orleans. manhattan and boston might have a rougher time of it but we're talking about 87 years to figure out levees, seawalls and pumping systems.
check out what 2 meter sea level rise actually looks like. it's really not that bad. http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/ the third world is going to get shit on a lot harder than us