Greta Thunberg

[Threepwood]

Only if you eat some types of fish and only if they were caught in the immediate surroundings of the power station.

Sounds like talk of humans in isolation again.

What about the other life that ate those fish? And the animals that ate those animals that ate those fish... Ect Ect through the food chain?

And, I wasn't aware that fukushima had magically stopped dumping radiation into the sea?

Also, have they figured out what to do with the million tons of seriously radioactive water that is being held on site yet?

 

[Angilion]

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the 1st couple of paragraphs as electric grids already exist, and are already taking power from renewable, which already supply surplus power when total input is greater than total output? Renwables are already a part of excess energy creation, alongside nuclear too.

Existing electric grids aren't enough. Arguing that the existence of electric grids proves that they're good enough to handle the far higher requirements your statement requires is like arguing that the existence of planes proves that planes can travel at 5000 mph while carrying 1000 tonnes of payload. It's theoretically possible, but it doesn't exist now. The existing use of renewables is already enough to destablise national grids. You're not sure what I'm talking about because you don't know enough about how electricity generation and transmission works.

It's true that, for example, Germany can pay other countries to prop up Germany's national grid which is too unstable due to Germany's heavy use of renewables. That's not necessarily true everywhere in the world and even where it is true it does matter. Even where it's possible to work around the problem, it does matter because it does have to be worked around and that capability has to be constructed. Also, it inevitably increases transmission wastage. Long distance transmission of electricity is possible, but some is wasted on the way. There is no means of transmission with 100% efficiency.

I'll repeat myself, as it's the simplest summary I can think of:

I'm not saying it's impossible, but to claim that it doesn't really matter if you can neither control nor rely on your electricity generation is at best highly optimistic and at worst just plain wrong.

Nor am I advocating only renewables. There are some places it really suits though, Scotland for example produced twice its domestic energy need from renewables in the 1st half of this year. There is a problem with storing excess energy, just as there is with nuclear, so yeah...

So nah, because nuclear is controllable and reliable and that does matter.

Surely there is enough sunlight in enough places of Australia for example where the impact on wildlife is minimal enough to harness enough of it to not have to fire up coal stations etc, seems sensible no?

As long as you don't put too much of it into your energy generating mix and you can afford the high cost and you can build and maintain the infrastructure required to have power stations in the middle of nowhere, far from where the electricity is used and you don't mind the transmission losses and you don't mind the environmental impact of mining, refining, manufacturing and transporting the required materials and components.

It's at least theoretically viable, but to claim that the very real problems don't really matter just isn't right. Even if they can be overcome in a way that's affordable (in both cost and environmental impact), the problems still really matter because they need to be overcome.

 

[Angilion]

Fusion reactor ? seems to be Mr Bezos's bag - so Amazon as the worlds energy supplier ... I'll have to finally buy a prime subscription
https://interestingengineering.com/bezos-backed-fusion-energy-startup-raises-100-million
if the chinese don't get there first ... even if we don't trust their other reactor designs for uk soil.

There's plenty of trying going on, but as yet the closest to a viable generator (which isn't very close at all - it's solely a research facility) is in Oxford, England (JET). Probably the most promising is currently under construction in France (ITER) and that's an international effort with a couple of dozen countries contributing. We probably won't have to rely on Amazon, so don't click on that prime subscription just yet

 

[Angilion]

Sounds like talk of humans in isolation again.

You were talking about risks to us. I assumed you meant humans.

What about the other life that ate those fish? And the animals that ate those animals that ate those fish... Ect Ect through the food chain?

I'd be concerned if there was any evidence that there was cause for concern. Do you have any?

And, I wasn't aware that fukushima had magically stopped dumping radiation into the sea?

That would be relevant if anyone had been saying that had happened.

Also, have they figured out what to do with the million tons of seriously radioactive water that is being held on site yet?

They could dump it all into the ocean without that much effect other than very locally, so it's not a terribly urgent problem.

 

[Threepwood]

You're going off on one without understanding what I mean than saying I don't understand stuff. We're getting our knickers in a twist.

What I'm saying is this...


There is already excess power produced, some of this comes from renewables, just as some of it comes from nuclear. No excess power comes from coal or gas really as they are more fired up as needed now (due to nuclear and renewables) (gas more as an instant need, coal more as a predicted need)

So... When one person says let's use nuclear to set about desalination... I say why not use renewables too? In fact, why not do it with the excess power created... Typically at night etc etc.

 

[Angilion]

You're going off on one without understanding what I mean than saying I don't understand stuff.

You said you didn't understand. You stated that explicitly. I replied to that, to your statement about your lack of understanding.

What I'm saying is this...

There is already excess power produced, some of this comes from renewables, just as some of it comes from nuclear. No excess power comes from coal or gas really as they are more fired up as needed now (due to nuclear and renewables) (gas more as an instant need, coal more as a predicted need)

So... When one person says let's use nuclear to set about desalination... I say why not use renewables too? In fact, why not do it with the excess power created... Typically at night etc etc.

Renewables too, yes. Adding the "too" makes a big difference. Although in many cases renewables don't create any power at night. Some forms of solar power can be made to generate electricity for part of the night, but the most common form is photovoltaic and that's useless at night.

But you were also saying that it doesn't really matter if we can neither control nor rely on our electricity generation. That does matter. Even if it can be worked around, it matters because it has to be worked around and the workaround has costs of its own.

 

[Threepwood]

You were talking about risks to us. I assumed you meant humans.

Was I? Can you provide any evidence of that?

Do you mean when I said, we are all part of one system, so we can be hurt indirectly when we hurt another part of it?

Edit: which part of that did you take as me only talking about humans?

Double edit:

You said you didn't understand. You stated that explicitly.

Yep. The context was why you are saying it, not what you are saying. I can read, and have a sufficient level of education. I just didn't understand why you were saying that, given what I was saying.. See? /untwists knickers

 

[BusError]

I wonder why we are all discussing technical ways of reducing the carbon footprint with wizardry and all that. Even if we suddenly discovered a carbon-free-plentiful-free-abundant energy source, we'd just be pushing the problem under the carpet a bit further.

We all know that the carbon footprint per person has been improving immensely for the last decades. The only slight issue is that there is more and more people with a carbon footprint.

I wonder if Greta berates her parents for having ... her. The last thing we need is children, the world over, but while the whole world is focused on "reducing the carbon footprint" they are all ignoring the elephant in the room: we cant *possibly win* given that the world population increases all the time.

So, really, I personally think were fscked anyway. Until the sacrosanct "right to reproduce" is looked over -- worldwide -- (and that will NEVER happen, it's completely ingrained in the DNA of civilisation that you have a "right" to have children). And that, will never happen. Until too late, which won't matter at that point.

Even with that Magic Energy source which is free, carbon neutral, vegan and all that stuff, we'd still be fscked because the population would continue to grow, and we'd probably try to blame something/someone else for the shortages of everything else. Ultimately, there is no solutions. It's wierd I feel like the Baddy in some film when i say that, but there's too many humans. As I speak (type) some more poped off. Probably in poverty, but still, they'll make 5 kids of their own.

So, all the work done for reducing the carbon footprint is just to buy the human virus a few more decades, that's all.

There you are, sorted for your xmas dreams

 

[Threepwood]

Although in many cases renewables don't create any power at night. Some forms of solar power can be made to generate electricity for part of the night, but the most common form is photovoltaic and that's useless at night.

Obviously.

I'm obviously not talking about excess solar power generated at night.

Duh.


Example, I'm currently, right this moment in Scotland.... And you can bet your bottom dollar that there is excess wind power being created as we speak.

 

[Angilion]

Was I? Can you provide any evidence of that?

Also, as for Fukushima, the fallout that is coming from that is mainly going into the ocean, where it is obviously doing most harm to life there. Which ultimately effects us too, as we are one big system, not just humans in isolation to everything else.

As I said, I assumed you were referring to humans when you used the word "us". What else would you be referring to?

 

[Angilion]

I wonder why we are all discussing technical ways of reducing the carbon footprint with wizardry and all that. Even if we suddenly discovered a carbon-free-plentiful-free-abundant energy source, we'd just be pushing the problem under the carpet a bit further.

We all know that the carbon footprint per person has been improving immensely for the last decades. The only slight issue is that there is more and more people with a carbon footprint.

I wonder if Greta berates her parents for having ... her. The last thing we need is children, the world over, but while the whole world is focused on "reducing the carbon footprint" they are all ignoring the elephant in the room: we cant *possibly win* given that the world population increases all the time.

So, really, I personally think were fscked anyway. Until the sacrosanct "right to reproduce" is looked over -- worldwide -- (and that will NEVER happen, it's completely ingrained in the DNA of civilisation that you have a "right" to have children). And that, will never happen. Until too late, which won't matter at that point.

Even with that Magic Energy source which is free, carbon neutral, vegan and all that stuff, we'd still be fscked because the population would continue to grow, and we'd probably try to blame something/someone else for the shortages of everything else. Ultimately, there is no solutions. It's wierd I feel like the Baddy in some film when i say that, but there's too many humans. As I speak (type) some more poped off. Probably in poverty, but still, they'll make 5 kids of their own.

So, all the work done for reducing the carbon footprint is just to buy the human virus a few more decades, that's all.

There you are, sorted for your xmas dreams

Humans are pretty good at pulling last minute solutions out of the air, so "a few more decades" might well be enough. Existing experience indicates that population increases eventually stop when standards of living become high enough and that population decreases after that. It's possible that patching up issues for long enough will work well enough. It would be more than a few decades for population, but patching things up for long enough might work out well enough.

Maybe our current level of success is the (or a) filter as outlined in the great filter hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

It is a measure of success - the current problems are a result of humanity winning so hard it doesn't know how to deal with the extreme degree of success.

 

[Threepwood]

As I said, I assumed you were referring to humans when you used the word "us". What else would you be referring to?

You just gotta be a bit more drunk than I am man (I'm a good few whiskies in before you take that as just a slight against you)

Just read what you quoted again.. It should be obvious I'm not only taking about humans in isolation. The 'too' after 'us' is almost as big a giveaway as the 'harm to life in the ocean' part.

You were only talking about death caused to humans by nuclear disaster fukushima... I was talking about most of the fallout going into the ocean and its effects there.

I'm obviously talking about more than humans.



Edit: anyway on some odd level we agree no? Balance is key... You would not go for only nuclear, and I would not go for only renewable, with both favouring a better alternative if there was one... Maybe I would go for more renewable and you more nuclear..... Can we both agree that less coal and gas would be worth it too?

 

[sityeuropa]

At the time of writing Wind is serving 27% and Nuclear 22% of energy needs.

 

[Angilion]

Obviously.

I'm obviously not talking about excess solar power generated at night.

Duh. [..]

You wrote this:

When one person says let's use nuclear to set about desalination... I say why not use renewables too? In fact, why not do it with the excess power created... Typically at night etc etc.

That depends on two things:

1) Power requirements being lower at night than during the day.
2) Power generating capacity being the same at night as it is during the day.

The more solar is used, especially photovoltaic, the less true (2) becomes. Many of the places that have the most use for desalination (which is explicitly what was being talked about) also have the highest potential for solar power (lots of sun, lots of mostly barren land). So it's relevant.

Also, you didn't initially say "renewables too". Just "renewables".

Double edit:

Yep. The context was why you are saying it, not what you are saying. I can read, and have a sufficient level of education. I just didn't understand why you were saying that, given what I was saying.. See? /untwists knickers

You were arguing that (i) being unable to control or rely on electricity generation didn't matter because electricity can be moved around and (ii) the existence of electricity distribution grids proves that the far larger (and far more international) amount of transmission required for your stated plans was possible. You didn't (and don't) understand what's wrong with those arguments. Not because you don't understand what I've written but because you don't understand enough about electricity generation and transmission. Obviously you can read...and obviously that's irrelevant. Also obviously, I never said you couldn't read.

Just read what you quoted again.. It should be obvious I'm not only taking about humans in isolation. The 'too' after 'us' is almost as big a giveaway as the 'harm to life in the ocean' part.

That would be relevant if I said you were only talking about humans in isolation. But I didn't. Also, you were talking mainly about humans because you were talking about the effect on humans of the effects on other animals:

What about the other life that ate those fish? And the animals that ate those animals that ate those fish... Ect Ect through the food chain?

It's mostly always about humans. Talk of "saving the planet" is inaccurate because the planet will carry on whatever humans do. Humans might make the planet uninhabitable for humans, but they won't destroy the planet. The planet isn't in danger from humans - humans are in danger from humans.

Edit: anyway on some odd level we agree no? Balance is key... You would not go for only nuclear, and I would not go for only renewable, with both favouring a better alternative if there was one...

Yes.

Maybe I would go for more renewable and you more nuclear.....

Probably. In general, I think maybe 30% renewables would be sustainable with current tech with the exception of areas in which geothermal is practical. That's a different ball game (and, strictly speaking, not actually renewable). You can rely on and control electricity generation from geothermal, so you can use that for a far higher percentage of the mix than you can with other renewables. As Iceland does and has for a while.

Can we both agree that less coal and gas would be worth it too?

Yes. Preferably no coal, since that's the most dangerous method of electricity generation (although the danger can be reduced a lot by enforced controls).

I'd also prefer that countries weren't dependent on other countries for their electricity generation and/or distribution. There's too much at stake to rely on benevolent mutual co-operation for all time. Try for that, yes, but don't make it a requirement for countries to not collapse in a couple of days with the death toll ramping up rapidly.

 

[4K8KW10]

"The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

The ban came into effect in 1989."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[8] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario, depending on the rate of future greenhouse gas emissions and on climate feedback effects.[9]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases

Why isn't carbon dioxide banned yet, if CFCs had been banned 30 years ago?

You probably can imagine that the melting ice caps are really important because they reflect large amount of sun radiation back, and without their presence, the global warming will accelerate!

 

[Angilion]

[..] Why isn't carbon dioxide banned yet, if CFCs had been banned 30 years ago?

Because banning CFCs was possible and banning CO2 is impossible.

 

[4K8KW10]

Because banning CFCs was possible and banning CO2 is impossible.

How so? It's just there's no political will, at all, to ban the fossil fuels burning which is the primary source of carbon dioxide excess emissions.

 

[Sankari]

How so? It's just there's no political will, at all, to ban the fossil fuels burning which is the primary source of carbon dioxide excess emissions.

Banning the primary source of CO2 emissions is not the same as banning CO2. Which is what you originally called for.

 

[Angilion]

How so? It's just there's no political will, at all, to ban the fossil fuels burning which is the primary source of carbon dioxide excess emissions.

1) You've just radically moved the goalposts from banning CO2 to banning the burning of fossil fuels.
2) It's also impossible to ban the burning of fossil fuels, unless you want to bring down global civilisation.
3) Burning fossil fuels accounts for a few percent of CO2 emissions on Earth.

You're just plain wrong, but I think that in this context you're most wrong in your enormous goalpost-shifting.

 

[Threepwood]

3) Burning fossil fuels accounts for a few percent of CO2 emissions on Earth.

It the only one that bring in carbon from another (or rather 'deeper') carbon cycle though right?

(I'm a bit scared of seeing/talking to 4k8k10 here, what with some of the stuff he says in the hardware section)