Climate Change

[Core Shot]

And yet. To solve the problem means the end of lift served skiing. With no air travel, resorts can’t be profitable. Sure, 15 minute cities with electric trains to the resorts could work for some. Assuming there’s snow.

https://ukfires.org/impact/publicati...absolute-zero/

Attachment 466124

Check that timeline. If we really clamp down on carbon, life as you knew it is over.

[PB]

As it is if we DON'T clamp dow on carbon as well. The Future is a scary place.

AI Overlords need to drop the hammer.

[Bunion 2020]

In the not too distant future there will be no need for actual humans. AI and VR will render such things as bodies as obsolete, robots that can withstand the new climate will do all the chores. Meanwhile we will exist in the servers and hopefully the box fan doesn't break and crash our app.

Da da da daaaaaaaaaaaa. (scary music)

[SumJongGuy]

Servers and processors definitely still need cooling.

[old goat]

Old goat I agree with everything you said but we still need to take carbon out of the atmosphere. Numbers don’t lie. You want some real numbers I learned this last year direct from the scientists who did the research? For decades we have speculated how high the seas levels will rise with the current amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Some people speculated a meter. Some people 100 meters. Well now we finally have a real number from deposits in a cave in Mallorca that are accurately dated to the last time the earth naturally had this much co2 2.5-3 million years ago in the Pliocene.

The answer is 16 meters. 50+ feet. Every coastal city on the planet is fucked. You think migration is bad now? You haven’t seen anything yet.

What the scientists do not know is how delayed the feedback loop is. These natural carbon cycles that we have records from in ocean cores all over the world took millions of years. So the seas level pretty much followed the carbon because it was a slow process. We have now done what takes millions of years in 150 years. So will it take 50 years or 200 or 1000 for the sea levels to rise that much? They aren’t sure. But they are sure that is where sea levels are going to get to if we only stop producing carbon entirely. If we continue on our current trajectory then we are getting into myocene or Eocene levels. And quite frankly we do not want to go there.

So yes I can say with a lot of confidence we need to actively take carbon out of the atmosphere if the majority of human beings want to continue to survive on this planet for the more than a few generations.

Let’s put it another way. Northern Greenland is currently ice, 2.5 million years ago it was a rich boreal like forest ecosystem. See the December cover of Nature about ancient dna. Another team of scientists I’ve been lucky enough to interview this last year.

Vote for people who are going to do everything they possibly can to do the right thing.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Seems to me mother nature invented a carbon capture system better than anything humans have devised or are likely to devise. If that system can't keep up how do you think our carbon capture machines will. Problem is, climate change has already decreased the area where trees will grow. The mountainside behind my house--a south facing slope--burned in 1959 and is still tree free. The same will happen to many of the burns in the Sierra. Maybe as time goes on trees will be able to be grown farther and farther north. Of course algae are the greatest agent for carbon capture--perhaps the warming seas will create a negative feedback loop by promoting algae growth.

I am very well aware of the disastrous predictions. I just don't believe massive technology will solve the problem; it may buy us some time, at the expense of further environmental degradation and unforeseen consequences. And putting our faith in technology to solve our problem makes it a lot easier to avoid the very painful, politically impossible life style changes that are the only hope for everting disaster.

North Americans and Europeans have declining population trends, but our economy is basically a ponzi scheme, requiring continuous population growth. Something's got to give. We are fucked.

Huge demographic problem--I'd suggest putting our elders out on ice floes except there will be no ice floes. I asked Robert Reich about this, sitting in on my kid's class with him at Cal--why does the economy keep having to grow. No good answer.

[Rasputin]

We are in the mess we are in because of massive industrialization of a good part of the world. It's hard for me to believe that more massive industrialization--carbon capture plants, wind and solar farms, nuclear power plants, not to mention pie in the sky projects like space based solar--is the answer. Plus the nonindustrialized world will not take kindly to being told they can't develop.

Well, the only answer that works, is not to over-power the situation, but to put less demand on the physical environment. Use less power, because all the power of technology has come from some substance of the earth burning, somewhere, the exhaust of which we all breathe. Sorry to all, for being exhausting at times.

[SumJongGuy]

Seems to me mother nature invented a carbon capture system better than anything humans have devised or are likely to devise. If that system can't keep up how do you think our carbon capture machines will. Problem is, climate change has already decreased the area where trees will grow. The mountainside behind my house--a south facing slope--burned in 1959 and is still tree free. The same will happen to many of the burns in the Sierra. Maybe as time goes on trees will be able to be grown farther and farther north. Of course algae are the greatest agent for carbon capture--perhaps the warming seas will create a negative feedback loop by promoting algae growth.

I am very well aware of the disastrous predictions. I just don't believe massive technology will solve the problem; it may buy us some time, at the expense of further environmental degradation and unforeseen consequences. And putting our faith in technology to solve our problem makes it a lot easier to avoid the very painful, politically impossible life style changes that are the only hope for everting disaster.


Huge demographic problem--I'd suggest putting our elders out on ice floes except there will be no ice floes. I asked Robert Reich about this, sitting in on my kid's class with him at Cal--why does the economy keep having to grow. No good answer.

It's partly because people are cutting down/removing the system to make room for more people and other resources for those people..

[PB]

Kind of makes you think twice about "affordable housing".

[ticketchecker]

Billionaires are working at winning climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...chest-rushkoff


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[sb]

[Core Shot]

Billionaires are working at winning climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...chest-rushkoff


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Sad read. Wow. They think they can win the mad max game.

[SumJongGuy]

Billionaires are working at winning climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...chest-rushkoff


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Business model.. Take the billionaire money and build an underground mega resort for them..

Survival model.. When the shit hits the fan have a back door security access set up to lock them out and take it for yourself instead..



WIN WIN!

I always thought the people with the chopper who secured the mall in Dawn of the Dead came as close to winning the Zombie Apocalypse as possible.

[ticketchecker]

Sad read. Wow. They think they can win the mad max game.

very sad, with that much coin you could actually pitch in and help out

[halliday]

Sad read. Wow. They think they can win the mad max game.

https://youtu.be/FtovFI8etOg

[Jax]

Populations may decline barely in some regions but earth = sum total. It will never decrease overall without a major, major catastrophe, everywhere. Covid tried, but not nearly hard enough.

Overheard in grocery store today, one young stocker says to the other "I've never seen so many babies in here". I politely quipped don't drink the water and the girl replied without hesitation " I won't be having kids because it there's too many already".

I'm not a ZPG believer but that's the 5 ton gorilla in the room for any young person struggling to just get by in already developed countries. It's becoming harder and harder for them to see the light, or look forward to a future that their parents, grandparents, g-grandparents had. Minimal housing they can own, a renter's society. Minimal jobs due to threats of more AI. Minimal forests as they will burn or get dozed. 6th extinction, major collapse of wildlife. No fresh seafood. No clean water. Wars. Extreme weather. No elderly care. Most of these kids grew up with a smartphone in their face since they were old enough to hold a spoon; the doomscroll is real with them.

Saw a reddit thread a few weeks back, dozens of younger gens plan to commit suicide 'as their retirement', once they've had enough fun, seen enough of the world, because they don't see a traditional retirement as something they can rely on in their future. They also know we're fukt. Depressing AF

[east or bust]

It's not like knowledge how to build nuclear power plants is lost like the pyramids.

Similarly, one could say the same thing about sailing. Yet if you try to captain a sailing vessel with Paul from AR you might have a bad day.

The examples I sited display this concept perfectly. Obviously there’s more to it than putting a round peg in a round hole, or maybe not obvious for some.

[Stuntmonkey]

Are these storage places for spent fuel rods operating?
How old are you?
Producing a waste that just might outlast humans is short sided.
I like the idea of small portable reactors for remote places.
We have a giant fusion reactor in the sky we can harness.
Spinning a rotor inside an stator, like all nuke plants do, is antiquated, but it's what we use.
Go watch Metldon on Netflix. I had no idea we came that close or so much radiation escaped.
It's not just "the olds" it's many scientists and geologists that know we can't always contain it, accidents happen

Yes. Trials have been run and thus far the current locations (former potash and uranium mines) have been working out well. I'm 40, but what does that matter?

SMRs are struggling to get off the ground due to red tape. Easy solution, but US State and DoE really fucked the last 10 years.

Yes because we haven't been trying to harness the sun at all. Come the fuck on man. Oh and by the way I've led 3 grid scale solar projects.

And yes, there is inherent risk. But there is with everything. There is not however, a lot of people with actual fucking credentials saying we shouldn't build more in order to stop gap and reduce some levels of coal and other carbon creating power sources until technology and society decide they actually want to solve the problem.

The US won't be the ones to lead the future in nuclear expansion, China has already claimed that title and will continue to do so. Canada needs to step it up and as do other countries.

None of these are a one-stop-fix-all for the future of power sourcing. There needs to be rapid investment in all things renewable. To the point where it should be akin to JFK saying lets send a man to the moon. But at the current rate, we will not get there. Solars efficiency scale is simply too high, wind power is very slow to build and again, efficiency. Nuclear, slow to build but incredibly efficient and reliable. All of these needs to be focused on with immense resources in order to increase efficiency, reduce red tape and build time lines, all while govts actively force expansion of carbon capture to heavily CO2 emitting industrial complexes.

But none of that will happen because the voters are so polarized over left and right, while govts make money hand over fist through all the bullshit involved.

[Supermoon]

very sad, with that much coin you could actually pitch in and help out

Billionaires would rather spend the rest of their lives drinking water distilled from their own piss than pay an extra dollar in taxes.

[skaredshtles]

Billionaires would rather spend the rest of their lives drinking water distilled from their own piss than pay an extra dollar in taxes.

It's not just billionaires.

[SumJongGuy]

And it's not new. It's what they've always done.. Just modern day castles and moats..

[DoYou WannaDance]

Similarly, one could say the same thing about sailing. Yet if you try to captain a sailing vessel with Paul from AR you might have a bad day.

The examples I sited display this concept perfectly. Obviously there’s more to it than putting a round peg in a round hole, or maybe not obvious for some.

Its my first year with a boat and I got a pretty big one (26 ft) can barely get in and out of my slip or grab my lobster traps first go with an 8 ft pole to help.

The shit people were able to do on the ocean prior to the last 100-200 years is mind boggling. Granted land travel was no easier and seafare was the heartbeat in many cases of those civilizations but its still hard to imagine how the fuck they actually did it and steered those things with no Garmin or Simrad.

[baron]

And it's not new. It's what they've always done.. Just modern day castles and moats..

makes me want to read ''Mask of the Red Death'' again

[k2skier112]

Yes. Trials have been run and thus far the current locations (former potash and uranium mines) have been working out well. I'm 40, but what does that matter?

Nope, fail. All spent power plant fuel rods are held on site. No National depository has been established. Of course it's the glossy side of "accidents never happen" from the Office of Nuclear Energy

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5...ve%20shielding.
3. SPENT FUEL FROM U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IS STORED AT MORE THAN 70 SITES IN 35 STATES
Most of the nation’s spent fuel is safely and securely stored at more than 70 reactor sites across the country. Roughly a quarter of these sites no longer have a reactor in operation.

The U.S. Department of Energy is now exploring the possibility of consolidating this spent nuclear fuel at one or more federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process.

For the foreseeable future, the spent fuel can safely stay at the reactor sites or a future consolidated interim storage facility until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...3600%20mSv%2Fh.
TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Only Fukushima is fresh news to you

Nukes will take too long to build and wont be cost effective

[baron]

Nope, fail. All spent power plant fuel rods are held on site. No National depository has been established. Of course it's the glossy side of "accidents never happen" from the Office of Nuclear Energy

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5...ve%20shielding.
3. SPENT FUEL FROM U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IS STORED AT MORE THAN 70 SITES IN 35 STATES
Most of the nation’s spent fuel is safely and securely stored at more than 70 reactor sites across the country. Roughly a quarter of these sites no longer have a reactor in operation.

The U.S. Department of Energy is now exploring the possibility of consolidating this spent nuclear fuel at one or more federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process.

For the foreseeable future, the spent fuel can safely stay at the reactor sites or a future consolidated interim storage facility until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...3600%20mSv%2Fh.
TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Only Fukushima is fresh news to you

Nukes will take too long to build and wont be cost effective

How about we slap all the crack heads into giant hamster wheels attached to generators, and dangle a crack rock in front of them to make them run

[Stuntmonkey]

Nope, fail. All spent power plant fuel rods are held on site. No National depository has been established. Of course it's the glossy side of "accidents never happen" from the Office of Nuclear Energy

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5...ve%20shielding.
3. SPENT FUEL FROM U.S. COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IS STORED AT MORE THAN 70 SITES IN 35 STATES
Most of the nation’s spent fuel is safely and securely stored at more than 70 reactor sites across the country. Roughly a quarter of these sites no longer have a reactor in operation.

The U.S. Department of Energy is now exploring the possibility of consolidating this spent nuclear fuel at one or more federal interim storage facilities using a consent-based siting process.

For the foreseeable future, the spent fuel can safely stay at the reactor sites or a future consolidated interim storage facility until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...3600%20mSv%2Fh.
TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Only Fukushima is fresh news to you

Nukes will take too long to build and wont be cost effective

I've mentioned Canada half a dozen times and made mention of CANDU already, you're leading me to believe you don't actually read.

Let me reiterate; Nobody gives a fuck about America and Nuclear energy. The country cannot build plants with ANY expediency, especially under the current circumstances.