/sci/ - Science & Math

>By contrast, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which includes former heads of government, business leaders and economists, said there was “unprecedented momentum” toward greener growth that would boost jobs and countries’ economies.
same thing they said about immigrants being needed, same people that said it
Excuse my /pol/, but fuck those people
https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/towards-global-carbon-pricing-direct-and-indirect-linking-of-carbon-markets.pdf
It's not only costly, it's costly because the competition got taxed by these same people

>>9979672
stealing or printing $26 trillion of peoples savings would "add $26 trillion to the world economy"

Bump

>>9979672
It's true. More energy efficient production is increasing profits. There is historic precedent. They just did not call it "green". When James Watt made steam engines more efficient industrial revolution took off. When smaller and stronger diesel engines and more efficient gasoline engines replaced steam economy got another boost.

>>9979672
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0
and realise american stupidity

>>9979672
What a stupid news article. When something requires more jobs to get the same level of production, it's a negative thing. Our entire modern world is built upon efficiency, producing more with less resources.

>>9979972
Green energy systems takes years before they pay off. Huge maintenance costs,licensing costs, limited space makes them niche.

Only reason they're profitable is because prices are being raised. They could raise costs and stay based on fossil fuel and make that much more profit.

>>9979672
I don't care about the economy

>>9979672
there is a reason that companies prefer more pollutant heavy forms of energy.
Pro tip: It's NOT because they are trying to destroy the world

>>9979672
one hundred percent
don't forget to buy israeli solar panels goyim!
http://helioscsp.com/israel-builds-worlds-largest-concentrated-solar-power-tower-2/

>>9979679
Renewables are not immigrants. Equating one to the other is useless. I want renewables but not millions of mestizos.
>>9979747
>>9980053
You know what else is expensive? The energy systems we already use. The world spends trillions a year on energy already. The cost of renewables is a big, scary number that translates to replacing what we already use by preserving as many jobs as current energy sources employ, and likely many extra jobs created.
>>9980182
Nuclear can provide baseline power when renewables aren't producing at peak. Excess energy can be stored thermally for either extra power generation later, or in a district heating type system to heat homes. Intercontinental grid improvements can improve the reliability of renewables as well.

>>9979672
World demand for energy is rising. And most power plants build today are "green". You can barely build anything else.

>>9979679
>the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate said we need more immigrants

t.oiltard

>>9980182
It's because the costs are externalized

>>9979672
It's not true because it's too little time, if there was more time AND there was the technology for it, sure

>>9979672
>Replace the energy sector, one of the largest economic sectors in any country, by bullying them into using meme technology that doesn't even truly help to fight climate change, but looks nicer to the public.
>Claim victory because you destroyed millions of jobs and assets in favour of Chinese imports put together with factory children
>What a beautiful planet!

>>9980219
An economy doesn't grow by creating new jobs. By that logic we should all go back to being subsistence farmers each with our own tiny rice patty to feed our family.

Specialization and cheap bulk production is more important to a modern society.

Green systems are too distributed, expensive and has a much larger negative impact on habitats. Why exactly are we doing this?

>>9979972
The problem with your post is that coal plants are literally the most efficient sources of energy. If you want to talk in terms of waste products then nuclear is the most efficient.

>>9980422
>destroyed millions of jobs and assets
While creating millions of other jobs and assets. If you're going to argue energy policy along economic lines, can you not be completely disingenuous by omitting large significant factors to make your argument?
>Green systems are too distributed, expensive and has a much larger negative impact on habitats. Why exactly are we doing this?
Wow, none of those are true. Solar and wind price points are already near conventional sources. Conventional sources and economics also value environmental externalities at zero, which is obviously not the case. You are right that taking up large amounts of land area for renewables will have a negative ecological impact, but context is important. Is that impact worse than multiple degrees C of warming? The redpill is that consumption and modern lifestyles are out of control any way you slice it.

>>9980476
>>9980433

>>9979672
Hmm.

>>9980476
It's not the comsumption or lifestyle that are harming nature, it's the technological and methodological choices made in production.

Nature doesn't care much if you fly around in a plane or drive a car. Nature cares if you power your plane and car with fossil fuels. For plenty of products and services we could use a lot cleaner production methods (nuclear power instead of coal is the most obvious one) and for some products we might need some more technological advancement (lab grown meat instead of spending 60 % of agricultural land for cows).

>>9979672
They are just calculating how fucking expensive is "" green "" energy and how much fucking people you need to employ for it

>>9979672
Oh

We have known this would happen for years.
Renewable energy was a sleeping dragon and now its finally waking up.

>>9980449
Nothing you say is true. Also we talk about economic efficiency. How long will it take to earn my money back? How big and how safe are my profits. Wind and solar already won this battle. Wow do I know? Almost no new coal or nuclear is build. All the money goes to wind and solar.

>>9979672
>nature adds money to the economy

No, that's not how it works.

>>9981932
The consumption of the average citizen of virtually all developed countries is unsustainable. Even if we switch to all renewables for our energy generation, people still drive distances that are too long, buy too much worthless shit that goes into a landfill or ends up as litter, and wastes nearly half the food they buy, at the same time that land use changes and poor agricultural practices rapidly erode the soil that is also exploited more than is necessary for food. Car engines disturb terrestrial life and boat engines disturb marine life, and cause significant ecological changes. As do the massive impermeable surfaces of our cities. It's just... almost no one has the average level of respect for the natural environment required to attain sustainability of economic activities. Consumption is too high and the waste will have severe negative impacts in the long term, but it can take centuries or even millennia for those negative effects to manifest and become apparent. The average person is either ignorant of or apathetic to all of these issues, and we can't afford it if conditions for humanity are to not rapidly deteriorate in the future. Fossil fuel pollution is a major issue, but only one issue of many.
>>9981940
It's already comparable in price point to conventional energy sources, which the world spends trillions annually on. Renewables will result in greater distributed wealth in the population, since individuals will frequently own their own solar panels and in some cases even wind turbines. Fossil fuels result in the lion's share going to the relevant company executives.

Bump

>>9983046
Do explain how "consumption" is unsustainable. There's plenty of energy and plenty of atoms to go around.

Landfills are going away. In my country there used to be thousands of landfills and now we have 40. The law is increasingly forbidding putting any stuff in landfills. Almost all waste is recycled or burned these days.

Why would distance travelled matter at all? It doesn't. It matters zero. The only thing that matters is how much pollution is generated.

I know there are plenty of environmental problems besides fossil fuels. But none of them are problems because of consumption and all of them are problems because of choices made in production.

>>9982544
The money goes to wind and solar because they don't need to pay the hidden costs or pay for load following.

>>9979672
50% of that money will go to China because they make solar panels and wind turbines.

>>9983926
And?

Economics isn't a zero sum game.
Richer China means their exports are less competitive and/or they have money to buy your exports. Your economy grows.
And a China that's selling expensive stuff to you is less likely to want to fight you. Killing customers is bad for business.

As long as wh*toids never stop using oil Muslims will always be relevant

>>9983926
Oh.

That's enough incentive to not make them then.

>>9980476
>Wow, none of those are true.
>... You are right that ...

You're a brainwashed retard that can't even order your own thoughts properly without resorting to the partisan propaganda you've been infected with.

There's no point for you to post here, go back to /pol/.

>>9979672
you know, when a mainstream media title is " XXXXXX study say " , it's bullshit.

>>9979672
This growth is mainly in China and India.

>>9982544
The money goes into wind and solar because it is literally forced by governments, not because it is good. If it was actually effective, private sector companies would be powering everything with it. No, private companies manufacturing "green" energy are only profitable because they are subsidized out the ass and have select few customers which are typically also government based. So basically they are full circle sucking off your tax dollars. You are a retard.

>>9983916
>Do explain how "consumption" is unsustainable. There's plenty of energy and plenty of atoms to go around.
The negative ecological impacts are too great to justify continuing fossil fuel use. Renewables are not going to meet total demand as long as frivolous wastefulness and apathy are the norm. Soil degradation and erosion are major problema, and yet the average person throws away 40% of the food they buy. Not sustainable; there is only so much soil.
>Landfills are going away. In my country there used to be thousands of landfills and now we have 40. The law is increasingly forbidding putting any stuff in landfills. Almost all waste is recycled or burned these days.
I agree, trash should be burned for power in incinerators designed for it.
>Why would distance travelled matter at all? It doesn't. It matters zero. The only thing that matters is how much pollution is generated.
And pollution is roughly linearly proportional to total pollution when holding other factors constant. Why do you make such useless and misleading points?
>>9984520
>Green systems are too distributed, expensive and has a much larger negative impact on habitats.
This is NOT true. Or, at least, you have not justified that it would be worse than all of the negative ecological impacts of fossil fuels, and there is less reason to think that than to think that fossil fuels will have a devastating impact in the long term. Perhaps renewables will have unacceptable externalities as well. I acknowledged the partial truth of the particular claim that renewables cause ecological issues, which they do, while denying your assertion that they are worse than fossil fuels. But of course, the subtlety of this is not convenient to your polemic style, so it must be intentionally misrepresented so that you can claim I am "indoctrinated" instead of speaking in terms of the best available evidence. Fucking sophist bitch, please kys.

>>9984727
Did you know American oil and corn ethanol are also heavily subsidized? Try making an objective comparison with subsidies for current energy sources before rejecting solar/wind on the basis of their subsidies, that are still smaller than those for the conventional ones.

>>9986123
*pollution is roughly linearly proportional to distance traveled

Economy probably will die with the birth of the A.I in the near future anyway

>>9986123
>The negative ecological impacts are too great to justify continuing fossil fuel use.
No disagreement here.

>Renewables are not going to meet total demand as long as frivolous wastefulness and apathy are the norm.
Renewables are not going to meet total demand using modern technology because they are intermittent producers and storage is still way too expensive. If batteries drop to 1/10 or 1/20 cost and are scalable then renewables will have a chance.

>Soil degradation and erosion are major problema, and yet the average person throws away 40% of the food they buy. Not sustainable; there is only so much soil.
The problem here is soil erosion, not consumption of foods that are grown in soil. You always need to understand what the real problem is so that you can tackle it. If tomorrow someone presents an automated vertical aeroponics/hydroponics farming complex or a food producing bioreactor or whatever, providing people with a near-unlimited food source without any soil use, would your argument about "consumption" still be valid? It would not be. Therefore consumption is not the problem. The method of production is the problem.

>And pollution is roughly linearly proportional to distance traveled when holding other factors constant. Why do you make such useless and misleading points?
Why would you hold other factors constant? They are not. A million miles in an electric car (or bike, horse, walking, etc) is way less polluting compared to million miles in a combustion car. This example alone should be sufficient to make you realize it's not the consumption that's the problem but the pollution itself. While you will see a lot of correlation between consumption and pollution, it doesn't make consumption the bad guy.

If you boil a liter of water in Germany (they love coal), your CO2 emissions will be 10 times higher than if you did the same in France (nuclear for the win). Method of production matters.

>>9979672
nonsense propaganda from the fin-tech faggot elite. its just speculation and designed to spur investment.

>>9986123
You said "none of those are true"
>NONE
And you the you "ok well you are right about this thing"

You fucking backtracking dumbass.

>>9986123
>Renewables are not going to meet total demand

People keep repeating this over and over again, but it's just not true. There are entire Canadian territories, German states, US states, even entire nations where all or almost all electricity production is renewable energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Places_with_around_100%_renewable_electricity

>>9980339
don't look up those name senpaitachi
it's only downhill from there

>>9979679
>same thing they said about immigrants being needed
Probably because it is and always has been true. Removing all borders would add $75 trillion to global GDP.

>>9986634
Look at the population numbers you dumbfuck. Hydroelectricity is the only viable one for large population going by that list.

>>9986634
You must be dumb.

Of course you can meet total demand with renewables WHEN YOU HAVE HUGE AMOUNT OF HYDRO OR BIOMASS.

Do you think the world, or even continents, have enough hydro and biomass to make it happen? They don't. Or they might for a very very small amount of time until there are no more trees left.

>>9979679
You don't need to only be invested in climate change to care about the environment. Although, I'm sure you love eating microplastics in your seafood, eh? Oh, silly me, what am I talking about? You're from the Bible belt, so you're probably one of those landlocked retard states.

>>9986664

>Removing all borders would add $75 trillion to global GDP.

Probably the dumbest and most short-sighted thing I ever read.

>>9986853
In the past century hydroelectric was the only renewable build on a large scale. This changed when larger wind turbines and solar came up. Today here are already regions like northern Germany with net renewable greater than 100%. Mainly wind and solar.

>>9986891
https://en.mecklenburg-vorpommern.de/economy_work
This article says Mecklenburg-Vorpommern only uses 68%

>>9986891
>Today here are already regions like northern Germany with net renewable greater than 100%

If you massage the numbers enough, you can get all kinds of BS. Reality is, Germany only gets 4% of its energy consumption from wind and solar. That is the number that actually matters for reducing CO2 emissions and sustainability.

>>9986929
He's talking about electricity, not energy, you retarded american

>>9986935
Energy is what is important for CO2 emissions, not just electricity

>>9986897
There is an combined heat and power plant in Rostock and another one in Schwerin. They can not be shut down because they power large district heat networks in these cities. As a result energy production in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern exceeds demand and 40% of all energy produced is exported.
So both of you are somewhat right.

>>9986857
being in the mediterranean, I eat slightly less of that than the rest of the world because the sea we fish in isn't completely swamped out by the plastic china keeps dropping out in the pacific
That said, kill yourself you big nosed fuck, none of those "people" care about climate change or anything else that isn't government gibs

>>9986944
Here we talk about the economic impact of green industry.

>>9983952
>Ching Chong bing bong give your money to us gweilo it’s for your own good
no thanks

>>9986929
Biomass is either carbon neutral or of lower impact than fossil fuels. Same with nuclear power. And while it's true that renewable/cleaner electricity only accounts for part of the problem, it doesn't mean different facets of the issue can be solved/ameliorated at the same time.

>>9987012

read the thread, since our resident "muh soil" guy showed up discussion evolved into fossil fuels and sustainability as a whole

>>9987035
Biomass has limited potential for growth, and the same is sadly true for nuclear due to political reasons. Out of all carbon neutral power sources, only much-hyped wind and solar will be growing significantly in foreseeable future. Yet they are still only on the order of several % even in Germany.

>>9986960
>being in the mediterranean, I eat slightly less of that than the rest of the world because the sea we fish in isn't completely swamped out by the plastic china keeps dropping out in the pacific
>Agree with me.
>That said, kill yourself you big nosed fuck, none of those "people" care about climate change or anything else that isn't government gibs
>Then call me a Jew because I disrupted your worldview.
The absolute state of nu/sci/.

>>9987163
>Agree with me
I can't agree with you if all you're doing is implying a known truth, that's not an opinion and cannot be agreed upon
the one thing I could agree upon in your post was
>You don't need to only be invested in climate change to care about the environment.
And I don't, because it implies that climate change is something that can be cared about, like if a meteor suddenly entered collision course with the earth, and you cared about shooting it down. That's something you can grieve upon, live in denial of, but you really can't "care about" because it is out of your abilities to tend to, as an individual and as a society.
To care about the environment is mostly to care about the actions of humans that can be damaging to the environment, not the changes the environment goes through naturally during its cycles

I must reiterate also that you should kill yourself, you hooknosed fuck

>>9986477
>Renewables are not going to meet total demand using modern technology because they are intermittent producers and storage is still way too expensive.
Thermal storage is cost effective and scalable. High capacity batteries would of course be useful as well, but there is already a viable solution available.
>The problem here is soil erosion, not consumption of foods that are grown in soil.
What is your major malfunction? More soil is needed to grow all of that extra food that is thrown away. Do you not understand proportional relationships or how an increase in one implies an increase in the other? There's no isolating the two.
>If tomorrow someone presents an automated vertical aeroponics/hydroponics farming complex or... would your argument still be valid? It would not be. Therefore consumption is not the problem. The method of production is the problem.
I was not including hypothetical technology in my argument, only existing ones. But no matter how you grow your food, you cannot escape providing all of the nutrient inputs, space, etc. There are always constraints you will run up against, and most of them negatively affect the soil when you use up more of the available space. Even the Netherlands, pioneers of high input intensive agriculture, are having serious environmental issues from their high production.
>Why would you hold other factors constant? They are not. A million miles in an electric car... is way less polluting compared to million miles in a combustion car. This example alone should be sufficient to make you realize it's not the consumption that's the problem but the pollution itself.
Once again, proportional relationships. You can only make so many efficiency improvements to moving a hunk of metal weighing a ton or more down the road, which is how most people in the developed world get around. Your insistence on decoupling things that are necessarily coupled is pointless and misleading. Large scale renewables will still cause issues.

>>9986615
Your original statement is, I believe, not correct. More importantly, it was not justified at any point. I haven't backtracked on shit. You simply lack reading comprehension or prefer arguing on the basis of equivocation.

>>9979672
>solar
>green

>>9986870
Not an argument. The data is clear on this one.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.25.3.83&ved=2ahUKEwi33eakmqzdAhXOHzQIHf2YAjsQFjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw3BcAnxUoEDEa1tA_X1mbbx

If half of this growth really goes to China and India they will become the leading economies even faster then I thought.

>>9979747
I’m assuming their figure is adjusted for inflation. Printing $26t won’t add $26t of real growth to the economy.

>>9980053
Powering our society with a finite resource is only efficient in the short run.

>>9987749
Solar thermal collectors are probably the greenest energy generation method of all. The only mining is for the iron to make the pipes and tanks, and probably some more minor uses of copper, zinc, and a few others such as for the reflective layer in the mirrors. No rare earths or highly toxic metals like cadmium are involved.

>>9979672
(((economics)))

>>9979679
>scared of fluoride in his water
>But acid oceans and micro plastics in his tap are fine
Someone explain hicks to me

>>9989228
>Someone explain hicks to me
they are stupid, that's all you need to know

>>9979672
Kek

>>9979672
>news.trust.org
>repost of Reuters news item
>when babby doesn't look beyond its news feed bottle
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-economy/greener-growth-could-add-26-trillion-to-world-economy-by-2030-study-idUSKCN1LL09J

>>9987024
Then what's stopping you competing?

>>9987024
/pol is over there Mr Wyatt Mann

>>9988148
Why does this growth go to China? Why not Europe or the US?

>>9989781
>Why not Europe or the US
in the case of the US because of republicans actively attacking green growth

bio methane would be the best short term source of green energy, it relies on food waste and sewage as feeder material which is widely available in any city to produce methane which can be upgraded to natural gas quality so not much new infrastructure is needed and said biomethane can be stored regardless of city climate so power 24/7. and the sanitized solid waste makes an incredibly rich fertilizer. The biogas plant is entirely carbon neutral when properly built
http://www.balmoral-group.com/balmoral-tanks/index.php/markets/anaerobic-digestion/anaerobic-digestion

>>9986664
>all borders and enforcement of borders removed overnight
>unskilled, legally retarded hordes in the literal millions come from Africa into Europe making the 2015 migration crisis look like child's play
>majority don't respect western culture and just leech of the system
>similar, although with higher quality people (still shit compared to the host nations), flood through central america into the US making the current crisis look like child's play
>Every city and suburb in the western world will look like detroit due the masses of useless unskilled low intelligent hordes that drain the system of resources
>these hordes continue to flow until the western world has become as bad as their homelands and everywhere in the world is basically africa
>majority of the modern world is destroyed
>???????
>75$ trillion somehow added to the Economy
You should unironically kill yourself you retarded onions sipping numale faggot

>>9991494
free movement of goods and people in Europe helped a lot to secure economic growth

>>9992045
It also sowed the seed of the future European race wars.

>>9989831
Why do these traitors help China and actively attack American growth? And why are they not punished for this?

>>9979672
It's as true as Keynesian economics. Since you'll need to replace the panels completely every few years, effectively building solar plants all over again, you'll need to spend money that will make the money flow and create jobs etc. Of course that money could've been used for something else that would last longer and create just as many jobs.

>>9992045
Keyword "in Europe". Also Schengen only happened after a long process of integration, and rightly so.

>>9986857
>I'm sure you love eating microplastics in your seafood
Those happened in the big city at a much higher rate than the fucking rural area you unironic dumb leftist retard.

>>9989228
>>9989257
Both of you are dumbfuck leftist incel. Both acid ocean and especially micro plastics are a huge no no for the hicks. Why do you think all those shilling for filter is for?

You have to pay people to maintain it

>>9992917
All seafood comes from the same big ocean.

>>9979672
>economics
>science

GTFO!

Pretty true. Renewables are just better than fossil fuels but are more technologically advanced. They don't require massive logistics to get them to point of use. So theoretically much better.

Fossil Fuels will be obsolete with enough improvements in renewable tech and not economically viable anymore.

>>9992661
Solar PV panels are commonly cited as having an operating lifetime of 20 years, but in actuality they keep working pretty well long past that if they are maintained. Concentrated solar is even easier; you just need to wash the mirrors off now and again. Mirrors should be relatively cheap to replace as well.

>>9993290
>they keep working pretty well long past that if they are maintained
They work but not at full capacity. It's like building a 10GW plant, but that effectively works at 7GW, and as time passes it goes down to 5. And if you want it to operate at full capacity again, unlike other forms of power generation, you don't replace a single system (like turbines), you have to replace the whole thing.

I quite like solar power. But, as is with other forms of generation, I think it has its place, and it's not as an industrial scale plant, but as distributed consumer generation in smart grids. As such, they don't take the land area that could be used more effectively by other plants, and the cost of replacing them is shifted to the user. Besides, it's ridiculous to think of something as "green", if in order to scale you have to proportionally scale it's area, removing what could be used as real green land.

>>9993321
I think PV for demand side is the best use for them. Most people with a home can afford some rooftop panels as well, or could get a loan for some. Concentrated solar could also be demand side to run say a water heater or hot plates for cooking, but CSP becomes substantially better at larger, power plant level installations. Plants in the desert can produce power in the hundreds of megawatts range for many hours with open sky, which they will have a good amount of the time. Solar towers are pretty impressive already, and the thermal storage side of the technology will improve with some more innovations. Current ones tend to use molten salts heated to high temperatures, but phase change materials as the working fluid could prove to be even better.

>>9993321
>They work but not at full capacity. It's like building a 10GW plant, but that effectively works at 7GW, and as time passes it goes down to 5. And if you want it to operate at full capacity again, unlike other forms of power generation, you don't replace a single system (like turbines), you have to replace the whole thing.
But that's wrong.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

>>9992045
Actually this is false it was heavy restrictions particularly on origination and classifications of goods in Europe in combination with endless American investment post war that caused economic growth.

>>9993321
Degradation is much lower, after 20 years capacity is still at 90%. And to get full capacity again you just have to add some more panels. Doing this is cheap because panels become much cheaper over time.

>>9994444
>And to get full capacity again you just have to add some more panels
You are playing with words there. If you add more panels you aren't restoring capacity, you are adding it, and adding with it the needed insolation area needed to power them. Your pic is a good use for them. This one isn't.
>let's just cut down these trees so we can put some solar panes here, that will reduce atmospheric carbon
Other good area for them is over hydro plants, taking care not to completely shadow the water below.

>>9995812
that's why there is need for regulation, putting solar panels on rooftops should be encouraged