Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Tempus fudge-it.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                     

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

A short book about climate change

A short book about climate change
  (-8)(-8)
(-8)
  [vote for,
against]

<engage propaganda mode/>

CO2 is causing climate change.

CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels.

CO2 is created by burning fossil fuels to make solar cells and windmills.

CO2 is created when making all products. Most products require little human labour and so the price reflects the energy used to create it (or the energy used to mine the raw materials).

So CO2 is created when you spend money.

CO2 emissions are worsened by not being able to repair devices or corporates encouraging device fashion.

CO2 emissions are worsened by trying to bottle energy in unrequired batteries rather than use reusable energy when its available.

CO2 emissions are worsened by driving to work in an electric car. That electric car cost more CO2 to make than a petrol one.

Please for the sake of humanity, stay at home, work from home and stop buying crap you don't need.

Avoid visiting sites like Amazon when you are bored.

The CO2 emissions from buying stuff destroys the planet and us with it !

How dare you! You are destroying all our lives by buying stuff.

Please ignore this message if you are not in the habit of endlessly buying new stuff, especially stuff like cars or phones. Cars and phones make up a sizeable chunk of the world's needless (energy) economy.

The End

[That's all I've got for now. Maybe I'll do a 2nd edition with gardening tips on Page 2]

bigsleep, May 01 2021

How reusable is a humble lead acid battery ? https://www.youtube...watch?v=9I0IAwOIwXo
[bigsleep, May 01 2021]

https://surplusener...mics.wordpress.com/ "we can’t overcome environmental challenges without changing our behaviour, and that we can’t shrink energy consumption without shrinking the economy. If we factor ECoE into the equation, two further critical points emerge. First, CO² emissions are a function of the total energy that we use, whilst material prosperity is linked to surplus (ex-ECoE) energy quantities. As ECoEs rise, they load this equation against us Therefore, a sizeable – and rising – proportion of CO² emissions is tied, not to the economic value that energy use creates, but to the energy that is used only to make energy supply available. We’re never going to combat climate change and ecological degradation effectively until we take this ‘variable geometry’ into account." [pocmloc, May 01 2021]

An older paper but relevant. https://www.scienti...olcanoes-or-humans/
Volcanoes vs CO2 from transportation is no contest. [RayfordSteele, May 02 2021]

Climate Change Is An Absolute Nightmare https://www.youtube...watch?v=6_5PyOreBbo
School Friendly Version! [bigsleep, May 02 2021]

Relevant https://miro.medium...Ds5_Blw8WgasRQ.jpeg
I'll just leave this here... [neutrinos_shadow, May 02 2021]

Peak Uranium https://en.wikipedi...g/wiki/Peak_uranium
[a1, May 03 2021]

Veritasium (youtuber) talk about CO2 warming https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
reasonable sounding explanation that co2 is causing warming and it's a problem [sninctown, May 04 2021]

Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs https://phys.org/ne...20than%205%20years.
PHYS.ORG [Skewed, May 04 2021]

Unsettled https://www.amazon....ncoding=UTF8&btkr=1
[theircompetitor, May 04 2021]

Steven Koonin https://en.wikipedi...ki/Steven_E._Koonin
[theircompetitor, May 04 2021]

[link]






       Oversimplification doesn't win over people who think for themselves, and people who don't are more easily won over with my team/your team.
Voice, May 01 2021
  

       Are any of the statements oversimplifications ? Pick one.   

       This is one case where the "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" axiom renders the whole climate debate nonsensical. It *is* as simple as reducing CO2 and the way to do that is stop burning fossil fuels by making unnecessary products.   

       Keep your current IPhone, car, furniture, kitchen for another few years and save the planet.   

       We are now entering an era where not doing so would signal such massive hypocrisy that any team could see it. Let all politicians know this.
bigsleep, May 01 2021
  

       I already do all that [big], because I can't afford not to.   

       As a result I reached the point a long time back where any self satisfied smug piece of **** telling me that I personally should use less could potentially be the subject of violent & potentially lethal outbursts of rage if I'm having a really bad day.   

       I very much doubt I'm the only quasi-slave out there who feels that way, in fact I'm damn sure I'm not & would posit that the reason the climate change message has hit so much resistance is precisely because of this, that there are so many like that out there on & below the poverty line & that the message is so utterly tone deaf to the fact a great many of them just can't 'use less'.   

       So you'd best change your message or ensure it's (very) clearly focused at the ones who can actually afford to cut back because if your message continues to just sound like "we must make poor people poorer to save the planet" to as many people as it does it's likely to be lost & ignored in a flood of violence & anger, you saw the beginnings of that in France b4 covid struck.   

       Just trying to shame people for not doing what they can't won't get it done, it's just going to make them angry.   

       You've got to give people something upbeat to draw them in.   

       You need a carrot as well as the stick.
Skewed, May 01 2021
  

       //Pick one.//   

       All right, I pick the third one, //CO2 is created by burning fossil fuels to make solar cells and windmills.//   

       This was entirely true only of the first generation of solar cells and windmills, and becomes steadily less true as an increasing proportion of the grid energy for manufacturing comes from solar cells and windmills.   

       Would you like me to pick another one?
pertinax, May 01 2021
  

       Electric cars do not take more CO2 to make than gas ones. You forgot to include the powertrain factors.   

       We should make a 'bigsleep's rant page' somewhere. And then tie a concrete slab to it and throw it into a black hole.
RayfordSteele, May 01 2021
  

       // less true as an increasing proportion of the grid energy for manufacturing comes from solar cells and windmills//   

       I hope they run the factories according to the duck curve.   

       //Electric cars do not take more CO2 to make than gas ones//   

       Oh yes they do. The shell and drive train are roughly the same, just add a ton of resource heavy batteries.   

       //clearly focused at the ones who can actually afford to//   

       I've added a rider. On a related note I keep thinking that at some stage they are going to start charging to get rid of stuff, so I'll be charged $100 for each item of junk hanging around in cupboards.   

       The idea is really pitched toward politicians who think they can spend their way out of climate change or sanctimonious activists who have no idea what creates CO2.
bigsleep, May 01 2021
  

       //pick one//   

       //CO2 causes climate change//   

       There are many greenhouses gasses, and we don't even understand the feedback loops yet. Other things than greenhouse gasses also cause climate change.   

       //CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels.//   

       CO2 is caused and sequestered by many anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic processes.   

       //CO2 is created by burning fossil fuels to make solar cells and windmills.//   

       The question is whether the total output changes by the amount of energy used and what laws and policies should be made and enforced (and how to do so) to encourage their use.
Voice, May 01 2021
  

       To improve this idea, maybe replace "climate change" with "demographic change", and replace "CO2" with "replacement migration", and replace "we" with "whoever owns the Federal Reserve Bank", but keep the level of indignation the same.
sninctown, May 01 2021
  

       //replace "CO2" with "replacement migration//   

       Umm, are you sure about that [sinc]? that's going to result in some strange statements, some oddly amusing, which may be what you were aiming for of course?   

       Herr's one .. //Replacement migration// //is created by burning fossil fuels to make solar cells and windmills//
Skewed, May 01 2021
  

       //There are many greenhouses gasses, and we don't even understand the feedback loops yet.//   

       Don't go saying things like that on twitter. You *must* go along with the narrative.   

       //total output//   

       I would like to see a company build a factory in a sunny, windy part of Spain and use solar and wind power to make a product that is reasonably energy intensive. Would the product be competitively priced ? How many years would it take to pay back the energy cost of building the factory, the windmills, the solar cells and the energy storage ? I don't think its viable.
bigsleep, May 01 2021
  

       // build a factory in a sunny, windy part of Spain and use solar and wind power to make a product that is reasonably energy intensive //
Cryptocurrency mining?
sninctown, May 01 2021
  

       Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.
He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Born 12 February 1946 Residence Australia Nationality Australian Fields Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering Institutions University of New England ,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide Alma mater University of New South Wales ,Macquarie University Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976) Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
  

         

       Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
  

       PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it. Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure."   

       //Oh yes they do. The shell and drive train are roughly the same, just add a ton of resource heavy batteries//   

       Don't argue with me. I work in the industry and wrote a paper on it. I'm not in the mood.   

       We had nearly this exact conversation with 8th awhile back, only including ocean CO2 as well. Rewind the tapes and listen to your heart's content.
RayfordSteele, May 01 2021
  

       [RayfordSteele], Don’t you know that professional education and subject matter expertise is no match for the self- assured intuition of an efFnM*? You’ll never win an argument with one. At best can hold them up to the light for anyone who can see.   

       * edited, out of respect for 2fries delicate sensibilities.
a1, May 01 2021
  

       //Don't argue with me//   

       I didn't mean the drivetrain was the same in design, but just about the same in energy cost to make. For similar cars, petrol vs electric there's an extra $10,000 price on electric for the additional manufacturing (energy) cost. No ?
bigsleep, May 01 2021
  

       That's only because the efficiencies of mass production are lessened for smaller volumes. The engine plant and all associated fluids must be accounted for.
RayfordSteele, May 01 2021
  

       I see no particular issue with electric cars, though no doubt strip mining continents for lithium has its price. I see issue though with recipe websites pulling meat recopies.
theircompetitor, May 01 2021
  

       The next thing will be supermarkets pulling meat of the shelves, but don't worry about it mate, that Quorn & Soy is excellent stuff, you can really fatten up a vegan with it, if you fancy a barbie next week I've a free range one that's just about ready.
Skewed, May 01 2021
  

       Yo [a1].
Notice how people can disagree without name calling?
You should try that.
  

       Disagreeing without name calling? I do that in most disagreements - even did for a long time with bigsleep. It’s ineffective. Not that I think calling him out by any number of names will make any difference to him. But it feels good and it’s fine practice for a different writing style.   

       And if anyone deserves to be called names around here, it’s him. I expect he enjoys it.
a1, May 01 2021
  

       He might...
and you might...
  

       But both of you are in a fairly crowded room.   

       Any comment on my last anno?   

       // crowded room // So? Neither soapboxing nor heckling are any good without an audience.   

       // Any comment on my last anno? // You mean the last anno before you started in on me about decorum? TL;DR.
a1, May 02 2021
  

       See my link.
RayfordSteele, May 02 2021
  

       ^ I will look at your link.   

       // So? Neither soapboxing nor heckling are any good without an audience.//   

       Do you consider me to be your audience? Are you my audience?
Audience. It's a funny word once you say it a few times.
  

       // Any comment on my last anno? //
////You mean the last anno before you started in on me about decorum? TL;DR.////
  

       Well that's a shame now isn't it?...   

       I read the Scientific American article [Rayfo].   

       This bit of spin-doctoring did it for me:   

       “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”   

       A "Journalist" telling us that individual volcanic eruptions do 'not' spike CO2 readings over time and that massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere are not causing fluctuations in the readings, let alone hundreds of active volcanoes at any given time, is your argument against what I have posted?
Is that right?
  

       Am I misreading the article?... or does volcanic eruption dwarf all human OPEC endevour... like almost daily... and we are being conned for money?   

       I'm all for switching to electric, hell the first electric vehicle invented before the internal combustion engine can still drive around its museum, but I'm so fucking done with being conned...   

       ...and I'm not alone.   

       Thank you for the Plimer quote, [2 fries]. I read it, and rhen I looked up what the United States Geological Survey had to say on the subject, and my first thought was "One or other of these two is lying to me; how can I work out which?"   

       But then I thought again, and I realised that there's no direct contradiction between Plimer's facts and the USGS facts.   

       What Plimer said is that CO2 mitigation efforts to date (as of about 2010) were small compared to the CO2 output of a major volcanic eruption. What the USGS says is that total CO2 output from human activities is large compared to that of volcanic eruptions.   

       These two statements are perfectly compatible, if total mitigation efforts up to 2010 represented only a small fraction of total human CO2 output.   

       Did they? Well that depends on what assumptions we make about human CO2 production in that period in the absence of any mitigation efforts. This is the same "what is the counterfactual case?" question that I raised earlier about COVID.   

       But whether they did or not, human mitigation efforts have ramped up a good deal since Plimer made that statement. About twenty years ago, about 100% of the electricity consumption in Western Australia came from coal. Now, that's down to about 30%, another 30-40%, roughly, comes from gas (with about half the carbon footprint of coal), and the rest is renewables. That change has not been linear; most off the transformation has come in the decade since Plimer's statement. To the extent that this kind of change is reflected around the world, and given the very large baseline number for human CO2 quoted by the USGS, I don't think the volcanoes are keeping up.
pertinax, May 02 2021
  

       Volcanic activity dwarfs human production and sequestration, but the facts remain that the climate is becoming more erratic, the sea is rising (much slower than people think, but nevertheless) and the world is becoming warmer. Given that us humans prefer a slightly cooler world, shouldn't we do something about that? I propose dumping huge amounts of free calcium into the ocean.
Voice, May 02 2021
  

       Grow more complex forests.Volcanoes haven't got the tree sinks they used to have.   

       Human's are altering the surface of our life support system in a very simplistic and energy wasteful way. We can do better, we are smart enough if we stop bickering.
wjt, May 02 2021
  

       //shouldn't we do something//   

       I know this is the HalfBakery where the general attitude is to do something massive and irreversible and then afterwards pick over what went wrong and try to repair the damage.   

       But, I think when we are talking about world systems of human society, the real economy, the financial economy, the ecosystem, the climate, &ce. &ce. there is a better way forward.   

       I think all of these things are self-organised systems, which means that deliberate individual interventions are most likely to be ineffective, or alternatively make things worse through unintended side effects.   

       The most useful way of handling global-scale self-organising systems is to monitor, measure, and try to understand, so as to be able to adapt to their unpredictable or unstable unfoldings.
pocmloc, May 02 2021
  

       //these things are self-organised systems//   

       Pretty sure that human systems are crudely managed by humans e.g. legalizing gambling to enable shares to be traded.   

       For an entertaining look at the chaotic nature of the worlds climate see [link].
bigsleep, May 02 2021
  

       I'm using "self-organised system" as a technical term describing a certain class of network or system in an abstract mathematical sense.   

       Wikipedia says "process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability"   

       Not a very lucid description but I am in a hurry to get my coffee and fried eggs.
pocmloc, May 02 2021
  

       The bit about the quantities of CO2 emitted did it for me. The rest is just journalism. 200 million vs. 24 billion is a bit lopsided.
RayfordSteele, May 02 2021
  

       //Volcanic activity dwarfs human production and sequestration//   

       I'm not saying you're wrong, [Voice], but given the contrary USGS figures (0.2gtpa for volcanos, 24gtpa for humans), what do *you* think those numbers should be? And how do you arrive at your figures?
pertinax, May 03 2021
  

       // It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback.//   

       Ah ok. That definition of 'organized'. As you were.   

       //I'll just leave this here//   

       Obviously the cartoon goes for the salesman's close, in that the things written on the board are implied as 'for a better world'. It begs for approval of the message rather than critical appraisal of the points.   

       The hidden question is "Just how much energy should we be using per capita ?". That is quite valid and will dictate all other aspects of society e.g. whether we can afford travel, mechanized agriculture etc. If we can't afford to run a tractor then things get difficult - we're back to 50% of people working the land for even a remote feel of civilization. (That was only 150 years ago).   

       The Michael Moore documentary "Planet of the Humans" was panned because it wasn't up to date, but in reality not a lot has changed. Green politics is still more about new economies than reduced CO2 emissions.
bigsleep, May 03 2021
  

       //"Just how much energy should we be using per capita ?".// The word "should" is doing a lot of work there. From an entropy point of view, the answer might be "as much as possible as quickly as possible".   

       To quote Shakespeare, "there is money, spend it, spend it, spend more". Given that in the post-Industrial-revolution economy, money is a token for fossil fuel consumption, I think we can conclude that Shakespeare would have holidayed every year in the South Pacific and would have driven a big V8 car to the corner shop every morning for his milk and newspaper.
pocmloc, May 03 2021
  

       source; I assumed it was true when someone implied it. I repent in flour and butter.
Voice, May 03 2021
  

       I'll buy the book if it ultimately promotes nuclear power as a valid way to reduce industrial CO2 output. Safest, cleanest power source humanity has come up with so far.
a1, May 03 2021
  

       Hear hear! I've boiled down all political discussion to that single issue.   

       "Nuclear power to help the environment, yes or no?" If the person says "No nukes" I might spend a minute or two telling to look at the history of nuclear power in say France for decades, then when they hit with the Chernoble argument I say "Would you fly an airplane?" "Yes" then I show them a picture of an original Wright Brother's Wright Flyer in a tangled mess. "A person died in this, why would you get on an airplane?" If they say "Because that was an old, unsafe design, newer designs have addressed the issues that one had." I just nod my head and change the subject letting them think they won the argument about airplanes.   

       Anyway, if that doesn't work I move on.
doctorremulac3, May 03 2021
  

       Nuculear aeroplanes!
pocmloc, May 03 2021
  

       //I'll buy the book if it ultimately promotes nuclear power as a valid way to reduce industrial CO2 output.//   

       Oh it does. But first we need to take the stupid CO2 argument to its logical conclusion - "Think again OR stop buying stuff !"
bigsleep, May 03 2021
  

       The only one real problem with nuclear power is it's basically just another fossil fuel, reserves will run out eventually just the same as coal & oil, it also has a secondary issue that's just the same as oil for a lot of countries including the UK, reliance on the countries with the reserves who can switch the tap of if we have a falling out, essentially nuclear solves nothing in the long run as a result .. still makes for a good interim measure of course, just don't fool yourself that it's anything but a stopgap measure though.   

       Renewables of some type are ultimately what everyone will have to fall back on, unless of course you subscribe to magical thinking of some ilk.
Skewed, May 03 2021
  

       //n uclear power is basically just another fossil fuel, reserves will run out eventually just the same as coal & oil //   

       Estimates for "peak uranium" have varied over time - from "we already passed it" to "it will never run out." So mores study is needed. But regardless, it's still the safest and cleanest energy source available.   

       Fusion power - which has been "just 10 years away" for the past seventy years or so - would supplant fission and really never, ever run out. And it'll be available any day now!
a1, May 03 2021
  

       // we need to take the stupid CO2 argument to its logical conclusion - "Think again OR stop buying stuff !" //   

       Wrong thinking. Placing limits on humanity is ultimate doom. Population pressure and technological advances are the only things hand-in-hand that will get us off this rock (hopefully in time). And a growing population will consume more stuff, no way around that.   

       Try to limit population to what's "sustainable" for known resources - and Malthus will still have the last laugh. And even if there isn't a Malthusian collapse, the next planetary scale disaster will put the lights out for anyone who is still here.
a1, May 03 2021
  

       //Placing limits on humanity is ultimate doom.//   

       Well yes, but we shouldn't stand for the hypocrisy. If they say that humanity is creating too much CO2 then impose new laws to stop people buying too much crap. Tell people they must hang on to products until they wear out, but no, we can't have any sensible thinking like that the solution is a 5 year transition of burning loads more energy to make more windmills, solar, heat pumps, insulation, lining roads with recharging points and not forgetting a complete transition to electric cars.   

       Stop. Please stop. It's creating a lot more CO2.   

       Nuclear is the only solution until we get used to needing a little less energy overall, and that's probably by buying less crap and instead spend money on services such as restaurants and tourism; people being paid to explain history on guided tours doesn't cost a lot of energy.
bigsleep, May 03 2021
  

       //basically just another fossil fuel, reserves will run out// //unless of course you subscribe to magical thinking of some ilk//   

       [Waits for the inevitable]   

       //"just 10 years away" for the past seventy years or so//   

       That's the bunny!   

       //it'll be available any day now!//   

       A really big white one with a waistcoat & a pocket watch ;)   

       //Placing limits on humanity is ultimate doom//   

       Oh look more magical thinking, wasn't expecting that one, I think you may have actually meant that one as well, unlike the other where I think I detected a smidge of irony.   

       Time can stand in for numbers perfectly adequately & we have lots of that.
Skewed, May 03 2021
  

       Well Skewed, what is your educated, informed opinion of the word's energy uranium reserves and how long they'll last?
a1, May 03 2021
  

       [bigsleep], just move back to your cabin in the woods and ask the beavers if you can co-opt their dam for some hydropower. Keep your lead acid batteries charged and just drag them in a wagon to town when they need recycling.   

       And turn the computer off, it's a wasteful consumer good that you don't need, uses to much electricity whether you're getting it from coal or the beaver dam. Not to mention it's an insanely complicated, barely recyclable piece of kit.   

       The rest of us will soldier on without your sage wisdom.
a1, May 03 2021
  

       As with everything in life it's about weighing various imperfect solutions against each other. Risk reward, cost to benefit that sort of stuff.   

       Life has been trying to do what we're doing for billions of years, thrive in every environment and eventually spread life beyond cradle Earth. We're doing pretty good. So good in fact that we as an organism have grown so fast that we need food power and everything else beyond what our crawling little ancestors could have ever imagined, if they had imaginations that is. It's gonna be a challenge but we're up to it.   

       If the nuclear fission stuff runs out we've got a big ball of nuclear fusion out there that we've learned to tap reasonably well. When one fuel source is gone, we'll figure out something else. We've got massive brains and opposing thumbs, the universe can challenge us all it wants but we've been kicking ass for a long time. Little dry spell in one of our supply chains isn't going to stop us.
doctorremulac3, May 03 2021
  

       //source; I assumed it was true when someone implied it//   

       {deep sigh}
pertinax, May 04 2021
  

       //Well Skewed, what is your educated, informed opinion of the word's energy uranium reserves and how long they'll last? //   

       A silly question & you know it, would you like to tell me how long a piece of string is? answer me that one & I'll answer you yours.   

       What are the assumptions you'd like to use, population size now & in future? consumption rate? efficiency of conversion to energy? power usage per person now & in future allowing for unknown developments in personal transport, home gadgets & thus far unimagined & unforeseen whatnot? hitherto undiscovered deposits? or if known ones are smaller than estimated?   

       You think I'm going to get into a conversation over twit details like that do you? well have another think.   

       1. It replenishes at geological speeds.   

       2. The available extant fuel for it is a limited & finite resource.   

       3. So if we use it in any significant / industrial quantities it will run out faster than it replenishes.   

       But you, you want exact figures or it's not a valid observation right?   

       Well go shove a broom handle up your arse & swivel mate cos I'm not falling for that exercise in stupidity (in this instance aka attempted entrapment, misdirection & obfuscation).   

       I tell you what, if you try & not be an arse I'll do the same (or at least keep my broom handles to myself) OK ;p
Skewed, May 04 2021
  

       If you want to argue with someone about just how long 'precisely' it will last go talk to theses people [a1] <link>, me I'm just not interested in discussing the minutia of that with you.   

       Here's a snippet from their site > "Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years"
Skewed, May 04 2021
  

       "Unsettled" is a new book by Steve Koonin, who served under President Obama -- see links. No doubt soon to be canceled as a denier.
theircompetitor, May 04 2021
  

       [Skewed], I was just fission for a reaction from you. Thanks,
a1, May 04 2021
  

       And he's re fusion to answer
pocmloc, May 04 2021
  

       He can keep re-fusing, and with enough pressure things get heavier and heavier. But it gets a bit iron-ic at the end.
a1, May 04 2021
  

       I may be //re fusion to answer// but his //fission for a reaction// did bear fruit [waves broom handle at [a1]]
Skewed, May 04 2021
  

       [Skewed], sweet talk won't do it, you have to buy me a drink first.
a1, May 04 2021
  

       [Straps rocket to broom handle] well, if 'Mohamed' won't come to the broom handle, [aims broom handle, lights touch paper steps back & ducks behind sofa].
Skewed, May 04 2021
  

       [firemen pull a dazed Skewed from behind a charred sofa] "Right, what's 'appened 'ere then? Don't you know burning broomstick and furniture releases CO2?"
a1, May 04 2021
  

       this is why we can't have nice things...   

       I for one look forward to palm trees growing at the north and south poles and the global weather conditions that enabled giant dinosaurs, following the inevitable 5x of atmospheric carbon. That way, when the green energy commissars send me to a gulag, at least it'll be someplace warm.
sninctown, May 05 2021
  

       Global Warming!   

       T-Shirts in December!
theircompetitor, May 05 2021
  

       According to The Party, the rising price of food will be brought under control soon, as soon as the weather changes...
RayfordSteele, May 05 2021
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle