Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

08 Dec 2020 05:57

For those reasons the world should focus immensely on how energy can become cheaper.  Extracting oil, coal and gas is a complex operation, and reservoirs are diminishing, so these energy sources will for the most part become obsolete if energy prices drop.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

08 Dec 2020 13:53

The cheap energy thing is a fallacy, dirty energy is only cheap because it is subsidized.  if you analyze the situation in reality, renewable energy has become cheaper than dirty fossil fuels.

"Not ready" doesn't matter because nature has its own timeline and if we dont subscribe to it, we go extinct, it's as simple as that.  To be honest, that's probably the best possible outcome, for the planet as a whole.  It's one big reason why I decided never to have children.

If humanity hadn't been so paranoid regarding nuclear energy this problem would have been solved back in the 80s.  This is one reason why scientific policy decisions shouldn't be left to "democracy" because frankly most people dont have the knowledge to make these decisions and scientists should have complete autonomy to make scientific policy decisions.

This is one case in which democracy is a hindrance.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

08 Dec 2020 23:34

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post The cheap energy thing is a fallacy, dirty energy is only cheap because it is subsidized.  if you analyze the situation in reality, renewable energy has become cheaper than dirty fossil fuels.

Subsidised, how?

The fallacy is rather to equal renewable energy with clean energy, and non-renewable with dirty.  A better metric is sustainability.  Some renewables are worse for nature, besides being less reliable.  But selling bad energy sources under the renewable brand has become profitable because it's now favoured by politics and carbon accounting.
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post If humanity hadn't been so paranoid regarding nuclear energy this problem would have been solved back in the 80s.

I agree.  Or it would be near solved today had not the momentum of the 80's stopped.  The "green" movement must take their share of the blame for that (but not everything), and we see history repeating today with "dirty" renewables being greenwashed, whilst in reality it's a poor deal for nature.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

11 Dec 2020 00:08

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post The cheap energy thing is a fallacy, dirty energy is only cheap because it is subsidized.  if you analyze the situation in reality, renewable energy has become cheaper than dirty fossil fuels.

Subsidised, how?

The fallacy is rather to equal renewable energy with clean energy, and non-renewable with dirty.  A better metric is sustainability.  Some renewables are worse for nature, besides being less reliable.  But selling bad energy sources under the renewable brand has become profitable because it's now favoured by politics and carbon accounting.
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post If humanity hadn't been so paranoid regarding nuclear energy this problem would have been solved back in the 80s.

I agree.  Or it would be near solved today had not the momentum of the 80's stopped.  The "green" movement must take their share of the blame for that (but not everything), and we see history repeating today with "dirty" renewables being greenwashed, whilst in reality it's a poor deal for nature.

In the US we subsidize bad things with taxpayer money- two examples are fossil fuels and the corn industry (from whence high fructose corn syrup is produced.)  The costs of drilling and procurement that you mentioned are actually being put on the shoulders of taxpayers here.  And you already know how unhealthy the average American's diet is lol.
I fully agree with you about renewable vs sustainable, but I was using that to point out that the prices are much closer to each other when you take out the subsidies (here in the US anyway).  I prefer nuclear over renewable (especially over wind, and about equal to solar and hydro).  The ironic thing about the antinuclear movement (here on Long Island anyway) is that it consisted of both conservatives and liberals, the reason being that they had become paranoid because of Three Mile Island and didn't think there was a way off the island if a disaster happened (like a hurricane hitting and causing a melt down at the plant) and they actually thought if that happened they'd have to swim off the island because there is only one main highway that goes to the mainland (mainland meaning NJ or The Bronx lol).  It was really dumb hysteria but that is what the 80s were about.  I think Chernobyl just cemented their fears.  And today they just dont realize how much more safety protocol there is compared to then (they also bring up Fukushima, but the risk of getting a tsunami here is virtually nil.  The terrorist risk is a bigger concern, but again, added security can lessen that risk.)
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

11 Dec 2020 01:17

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post And you already know how unhealthy the average American's diet is lol.

The problem in the US is more the size of the meals than what.  Eating "unhealthy" food is ok unless it's only that thing.  It just has to be different things, and not too much.  I'm reminded of a restaurant that I went to during a visit to the US not that long ago (well, it's obviously about a year now).  I ordered a salat as a starter.  I got a huge iceberg wedge, which I barely could finish and after that there was no way I could have a main meal.  So many times in the US do I get excessive portions.  Like, getting a sandwich for lunch, which gets loaded with so much ham and stuffing that I'm completely full for the next 24h.  So many times in the US I wake up in the morning completely full, and I might even not had dinner the day before, just a lunch which was too excessive.  I tend to eat either lunch or dinner in the US.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post they also bring up Fukushima, but the risk of getting a tsunami here is virtually nil

Actually, tsunamis are real risks anywhere in the world, since the source, whether an earthquake or land/seafloor slide, can be far away.  It must be taken into account when planning plants.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

11 Dec 2020 02:50

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post And you already know how unhealthy the average American's diet is lol.

The problem in the US is more the size of the meals than what.  Eating "unhealthy" food is ok unless it's only that thing.  It just has to be different things, and not too much.  I'm reminded of a restaurant that I went to during a visit to the US not that long ago (well, it's obviously about a year now).  I ordered a salat as a starter.  I got a huge iceberg wedge, which I barely could finish and after that there was no way I could have a main meal.  So many times in the US do I get excessive portions.  Like, getting a sandwich for lunch, which gets loaded with so much ham and stuffing that I'm completely full for the next 24h.  So many times in the US I wake up in the morning completely full, and I might even not had dinner the day before, just a lunch which was too excessive.  I tend to eat either lunch or dinner in the US.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post they also bring up Fukushima, but the risk of getting a tsunami here is virtually nil

Actually, tsunamis are real risks anywhere in the world, since the source, whether an earthquake or land/seafloor slide, can be far away.  It must be taken into account when planning plants.

YES!  That's why I feel awful in the mornings and I've now started doing an intermittent fast which makes me feel much better.  One day a week I dont eat or drink anything at all (not even water) for 24 hours.  I think this helps me recover from the portions I ate the previous day(s).  I also stay away from anything with cheese or mayo or soda or any of that excessive sugary or greasy stuff since I get physically sick from consuming that.
About Fukushima, do you think that they skimped on some protocols and it should have been built to a much higher building code?
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

11 Dec 2020 04:27

Not drinking for 24h doesn't sound healthy.  Skipping food for a day once in a while probably isn't a problem, except that it may be difficult socially.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post About Fukushima, do you think that they skimped on some protocols and it should have been built to a much higher building code?

In hindsight it's easy to say that it had the wrong location.  I'm pretty sure they thought about this, but I don't know what they underestimated.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

11 Dec 2020 16:00

midtskogen wrote:
Not drinking for 24h doesn't sound healthy.  Skipping food for a day once in a while probably isn't a problem, except that it may be difficult socially.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post About Fukushima, do you think that they skimped on some protocols and it should have been built to a much higher building code?

In hindsight it's easy to say that it had the wrong location.  I'm pretty sure they thought about this, but I don't know what they underestimated.

Unfortunately I have major digestive issues if I drink water on an empty stomach....I dont know if there is something wrong with the water around here (it seems to happen more in the summer which makes me think there is some fertilizer seepage going on into our local aquifers, something that has been reported by the local media.)  So when I dont eat, I cant drink water either.  I'm just going to reduce my portions and see if that's better and avoid those foods I mentioned.
About Fukushima, in hindsight research has come out that there were warnings, but I'm not sure where else they could have built this.  Japan has some unique vulnerabilities.
 
TommyJ
Observer
Observer
Posts: 15
Joined: 04 Dec 2020

General global warming / climate change discussion

23 Dec 2020 04:07

Let me jump into the discussion. Topics related to global warming/climate change were discussed here.
In some of your recent posts, you have argued that dirty energy is cheap because it is subsidized. And this is well-founded in many countries. But more because coal is still cheaper to mine. But here I agree. I've also seen the opinion that not all renewable energy is green. Here, as I understand it, is it mainly about batteries or other methods of storing energy?
It seems to me that people also attach too much importance to the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles. But they actually pollute the air even more than regular cars. Since most of the energy, they are charged with is thermal energy. In addition, battery disposal is still very harmful to the ecosystem. In Singapore, they recalculated the harmfulness of an electric car and now they have the same tax on Tesla as on a 6.2 liter Corvette. (In Singapore, auto tax depends mainly on the degree of pollution)
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

23 Dec 2020 04:30

TommyJ wrote:
Source of the post I've also seen the opinion that not all renewable energy is green. Here, as I understand it, is it mainly about batteries or other methods of storing energy

Part of the equation, but not mainly.  Many things contribute: land use, waste issues, impact on biodiversity, impact on wildlife, visual and audible noise.  For instance, wind farms produce renewable energy, but industrialise large areas, kill birds and insects, have a big visual impact, are noisy, scare wildlife, turbines can't be recycled, have short lifespans, and can only be a supplement to other energy sources, as their energy production is highly variable and unreliable.

TommyJ wrote:
Source of the post It seems to me that people also attach too much importance to the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles. But they actually pollute the air even more than regular cars.

Electric cars can pollute as much as anything else if the electricity was produced in a polluting way.  But the good thing with electric cars is that it centralises the energy production.  So if your country can produce electricity with very little energy, such as with hydro power of nuclear power, electric cars will not pollute much.  Even if the production is "dirty", moving to electric cars will simplify the transition to cleaner power.  And even if the production is dirty, it's a good idea to have that dirt out of the highly populated cities.  The air in the major cities of the world has become dramatically better over the past decades, which is a good thing for people's health, though the situation might not have improved globally.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

23 Dec 2020 18:25

yes asthma is bad in NYC and we have really bad days especially when there is an inversion and auto pollutants get trapped underneath it- electric vehicles go a long way towards improving that.

one good thing out of the pandemic is that it (temporarily) lowered pollution levels.  The number of cars being allowed on the roads in cities like Delhi, India had to be severely limited because of all the headaches and burning eyes people were getting from the air pollution.
 
TommyJ
Observer
Observer
Posts: 15
Joined: 04 Dec 2020

General global warming / climate change discussion

24 Dec 2020 03:20

midtskogen wrote:
TommyJ wrote:
Source of the post I've also seen the opinion that not all renewable energy is green. Here, as I understand it, is it mainly about batteries or other methods of storing energy

Part of the equation, but not mainly.  Many things contribute: land use, waste issues, impact on biodiversity, impact on wildlife, visual and audible noise.  For instance, wind farms produce renewable energy, but industrialise large areas, kill birds and insects, have a big visual impact, are noisy, scare wildlife, turbines can't be recycled, have short lifespans, and can only be a supplement to other energy sources, as their energy production is highly variable and unreliable.

TommyJ wrote:
Source of the post It seems to me that people also attach too much importance to the environmental friendliness of electric vehicles. But they actually pollute the air even more than regular cars.

Electric cars can pollute as much as anything else if the electricity was produced in a polluting way.  But the good thing with electric cars is that it centralises the energy production.  So if your country can produce electricity with very little energy, such as with hydro power of nuclear power, electric cars will not pollute much.  Even if the production is "dirty", moving to electric cars will simplify the transition to cleaner power.  And even if the production is dirty, it's a good idea to have that dirt out of the highly populated cities.  The air in the major cities of the world has become dramatically better over the past decades, which is a good thing for people's health, though the situation might not have improved globally.

Yeah, only this does not solve the problem but transfers it from cities. You also get a negative impact on the planet in general. Well, that's okay.

There are studies that show that a person walking to a gym ultimately generates more emissions into the world than someone who drives there. In simple terms - more walking means more eating, more eating - you go to shops and buy more, I wrote about this. I think we all fundamentally think in the wrong direction when we discuss our impact on the planet
 
A-L-E-X
Galaxy Architect
Galaxy Architect
Posts: 2681
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate change discussion

24 Dec 2020 08:50

err it's more than just carbon emissions lol, it's also about the generation of toxic NO2 which is the number one shortener of life on this planet (even beyond tobacco smoking), pollution from NO2 shortens life by an average of 2 years, while tobacco shortens life an average of 1.5 years.  air pollution from dirty fuel powered vehicles is the number one killer on the planet.

and a proper diet is also important, eat less meat (or even better NO meat) and more plant-based and it is much better for you and for the planet.  also walking (or biking) is a lot healthier than driving and in many cities, it actually takes longer to get there when driving (not to mention the NO2 pollution driving a dirty fuel powered vehicle generates and the resultant higher rates of asthma.)
 
User avatar
Challenger
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 28
Joined: 26 Oct 2020
Location: USA

General global warming / climate change discussion

19 Jan 2021 06:15

A-L-E-X wrote:
err it's more than just carbon emissions lol, it's also about the generation of toxic NO2 which is the number one shortener of life on this planet (even beyond tobacco smoking), pollution from NO2 shortens life by an average of 2 years, while tobacco shortens life an average of 1.5 years.  air pollution from dirty fuel powered vehicles is the number one killer on the planet.

and a proper diet is also important, eat less meat (or even better NO meat) and more plant-based and it is much better for you and for the planet.  also walking (or biking) is a lot healthier than driving and in many cities, it actually takes longer to get there when driving (not to mention the NO2 pollution driving a dirty fuel powered vehicle generates and the resultant higher rates of asthma.)

Containing global warming requires more radical solutions. Of course, give up superconsumption, buying unnecessary and unnecessary things, equipment for an environmentally friendly home, and much more.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Topic Author
Posts: 1231
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate change discussion

06 Mar 2021 12:05

Wow, there's no AMO, according to Michael Mann who previously has given much evidence for this semi-periodic, natural internal variability.  First he killed the mediaeval warm period, now AMO, leaving human influence the only significant climate driver over timescales of decades and centuries. 
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest