/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2460272]

1) Phase Out Coal by 2030
-replace with low emission (i.e. Natural Gas) and no emission (Nuclear, Geo, Hydro, Solar-Thermal, etc) sources of power generation
2) expand existing and build new Public Transportation Systems to provide an alternative to total automotive dependence
- Metro trains where appropriate inside cities
- Commuter trains to and through suburbia from a city centre terminal
- Streetcars on the road in the urban area and inner-suburbs
- Regional trains going beyond the end of Commuter lines to rural and regional areas and big towns/small cities therein

What will this do to AGW?

[Anonymous No.2460277]

Nothing. Most of the worst of AGW is already baked in and we'll have to ride it out as it destroys agriculture and collapses society. The cycle is set, and anything we do now is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Anonymous No.2460283]

>>2460277
get out of here, Glenn Beck

[Anonymous No.2460297]

We dont need to worry about Climate Change
God will save us

[Anonymous No.2460361]

bumping for answer please

[Anonymous No.2460367]

>mfw we will still be a race of pussies
Thanks a lot liberals.

[Anonymous No.2460380]

OPs post is basically "what would happen with climate change if we reduced carbon emissions?"

Honestly not much. Your suggestions only take a chunk out of carbon emissions and CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere. We are way past the point of prevention and need to develop plans to adapt.

[Anonymous No.2460387]

Sure. You'll convince all the controllers of big industry to get right on that just as soon as you figure out a way to make it all economically viable.
And for the record, "government incentives" doesn't work to create economic viability.

[Anonymous No.2460396]

>>2460380
but then we just keep adding more
>>2460387
tax them for every tonne of CO2 released

[Anonymous No.2460407]

>>2460367

Technoviking always makes me wet...

[Anonymous No.2460441]

>>2460396
Yeah well thats reality. Renewables arent going to happen until they become economically favorable to do so.

[Anonymous No.2460444]

>Phase Out Coal by 2030
>Setting up lots of Thermal, Hydro, solar and wind power generation within a short space of time is not economically viable
>Nuclear power plants take more than 20 years to build
>There isnt enough natural gas supply to comfortably supply all power needs

Hollow objectives much

[Anonymous No.2460499]

>>2460444
>phase out coal over 20 years
>nuclear power plants take 20 years to build
notice a correlation?
And look at all the Natural Gas being pumped out by Australia there is plenty
Then there is Geo and Hydro, and renewables like Solar-Thermal

[Anonymous No.2460508]

>>2460444
the french dont take 20 years
more like 10 years for their Generation III+ reactors

[Anonymous No.2460519]

We should just elect T Boone Pickens as president

[Anonymous No.2460528]

>mfw phase out coal.

[Anonymous No.2460532]

>>2460519
a rightwing nut who jumped on the environmental bandwagen in the hope of selling natural gas as car fuel?
No.

[Anonymous No.2460533]

>>2460528
biggest polluter of the biggest polluting industry

[Anonymous No.2460535]

>>2460532
>thinks left wing nuts are any better.

[Anonymous No.2460539]

>>2460533
>implying pollution is a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.2460548]

>implying the natural gas industry doesnt have massive leakage problems which adds to the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and causes other air pollution problems.

[Anonymous No.2460552]

>>2460548
>implying that's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.2460559]

>>2460519
wind is a boondoggle
it doesn't work most of the time and you have to keep conventional power generators on stand by to pick up the slack
might as well not bother
if trucking companies want to convert from diesel to natural gas thats their business not the publics
You want to seriously reduce oil imports+conserve oil, reduce pollution, and save peoples money - build Public Transport system of inter-locking multi-modal networks as OP described

[Anonymous No.2460560]

>>2460535
They are. Stalin was a right-wing deviationist.

[Anonymous No.2460565]

>>2460559
Or have local production and stop unnecessary trade.

[Anonymous No.2460570]

>>2460560
>Stalin
>right-wing
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.2460573]

>>2460565
>implying the USA didn't tap out its reserves decades ago
>implying it is cheap and easy to access & process the crud in the Arctic
>implying the same for far off shore deep under water
instead of trying to preserve the unsustainable, you look at alternatives

[Anonymous No.2460576]

I think a common consensus has arisen that depleting CO2 output would benefit fucking everything everywhere forever, but since it isn't as cheap as burning dinosaurs, no one is going to do it.

They plan to fend off the sun's rays with dollar bills.

[Anonymous No.2460583]

>>2460570
Well shit, now that you've supplied an unsourced graph based on completely arbitrary criteria, I have to concede.

Stalin solidified bureaucratic rule until the state started to express its interests against the working class (and indeed, even exploited them) which places him firmly in the bourgeois camp. If the far-left (socialism) is defined by worker's control over production, then he is not far-left by any means.

[Anonymous No.2460593]

>>2460583
He had a collectivist authoritarian regime. Also Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. This was the case with the USSR as the state owned everything.

[Anonymous No.2460596]

bumping to bring back on topic

[Anonymous No.2460604]

>>2460573
>implying those alternatives are sustainable.
>implying those alternatives are even manageable
>implying the maintenance of such infrastructure is even worth it.

[Anonymous No.2460605]

>>2460593
What happens when the state owns the means of production, and then the state begins to express its interests independently of the proletariat? State capitalism. Besides, as far as Marxism is concerned, the only goal of socialism is the abolition of private property, which the Soviet Union didn't come close to doing.

Anyway, no need for me to shit up this thread any further, continue talking about natural gases or whatever the fuck.

[Anonymous No.2460610]

>>2460605
Nooo but communism can work! You can eliminate corruption by indoctrinating everyone to be socialists, we could have these like buildings everywhere with preachers in them and make everyone go to them once a week to be told to be good and kind all the time, then when there is 0 corruption we can live in a super happy utopia.

[Anonymous No.2460611]

>>2460605
It's still collectivists if the proletariat buys into it as they did with the USSR. And currently with Obama.
But I agree we shouldn't shit up /sci/ with politics.

[Anonymous No.2460649]

if we got over all the bitching and whining around fission power we could probably have some pretty sweet new reactors by now.
and fusion research needs more funding. a lot more

[Anonymous No.2460661]

Related Reading;
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/stati
stical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2010_downloads/2030_energy_outlook_booklet.pdf
and
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/stati
stical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2010_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_ful
l_report_2010.pdf

By about 2030 we will be gradually removing oil from our main source of energy as well as coal.
Countries such as Australia will be come new gas energy giants capable of supplying enourmous amounts of gas to the world market.
Even much the US will be able to provide its own energy via gas, see, http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

So, yeh, over the next 50 years we'll slowly but surely rectify the problem of CO2. But, lol, it woud never really have been for envirenmental reasons, but more so for profit purposes.
Then I guess maybe over the following 250 years a good dea, though not all, of the Co2 damage may be reverted.

tl;dr, wait it out, humanity will fine overal in the end. The free market is fixing it.

[Anonymous No.2460686]

>>2460499
>derp
but the power plants arnt even planned and i did say more than 20 years.
There is not enough natural gas coming out of austrialia (or anywhere for that matter) to compete with the amount of cheap russian coal still available
Renewables are obviously not gonna be significant in reaching this goal without some significant leap in their development to make them economically viable

[Anonymous No.2460726]

>>2460604
Solar Thermal works 24/7 unlike photovoltaic cells
and is sustainable for as long as we have a sun
>>2460649
The French have Generation III+ reactors under construction at home and in Finland - their design will produce 1650mw when operational, Westinghouse also has a design that hasn't yet been built anywhere I think
Generation IV is probably 15-20 years away

[Anonymous No.2460741]

>>2460726
what i was implying was, if the united states was mostly or at least majorly nuclear-run, chances are reactor technology would be much more advanced. world's biggest energy consumers etc.

[Anonymous No.2460807]

>>2460741
And France is the worlds largest user of Nuclear power
59 reactors provide 72% of their power, and 13% of Europes

[Anonymous No.2460848]

Are Australias recent floods and not the cyclone a result of AGW?

[Anonymous No.2460851]

>>2460848
not=now

[Anonymous No.2460874]

>>2460277
>Most of the worst of AGW will only affect poor people

[Anonymous No.2460889]

>>2460848
Australia is subject to the La Nina and El Nino cycles.

When its drought in Australia its Wet in South America. When its Dry in South American its Wet in Australia.
The cycles last 'roughly' 5 years, with minicycles within itself.

We came off a record 7 year drought in 2007 (El Nino) only to walk into a gradually wetter and wetter La Nino culminating into what we have now. These cycles have always happaned regardles of AGW.

However. The recent stronger than usual La Nina this Summer has largely been the result of warmer than avearage water temperatures in the ocean to the North-East of Australia. I can't think of anyone that's come out and said that these warmer than usual ocean temperatures are the direct result of AGW, but a number have said it is highly likely.

tl;dr? We have cyclical dry and wet seasons aroun 5 years, this particular wet season is likely worse because of AGW.

[Anonymous No.2460904]

>>2460889
>I can't think of anyone that's come out and said that these warmer than usual ocean temperatures are the direct result of AGW
Bob Brown did, he said the coal miners should pay for the QLD reconstruction
No word on if he was wearing a trollface mask

[Anonymous No.2460933]

>>2460904
Lol, Coal is making Australia ridiculously rich at the moment, and will for a long while still.

We'll probably get off it eventually though. I'm guessing not until around 2035-2050, At which point LNG will pretty much be the new coal for Australia. And like I said here; .>>2460661 we'll be the biggest exporter. Also, we have biggest reserves of Uranium, Win! Or even Solar for us too.

Aussies really have no idea how lucky they are with the natural resources in the country and how the government spreads that wealth through taxes relatively well compared to many other states.

[Anonymous No.2460936]

>>2460904
holy shit

[Anonymous No.2460941]

>>2460933
>Or even Solar for us too.
Spains been the biggest developer of Solar-Thermal
followed by China and America
There was to be a 5mw pilot plant up in QLD but that was shutdown before it was ever even opened following complaints about the focusing mirrors

[Anonymous No.2460963]

>>2460933
making a few corporations and shareholders rich
otherwise the wealth is going out of the country and we're doing nothing to develop this commodity
we're like all those 3rd world export based countries

[Anonymous No.2460965]

>>2460941
I won't debate your points, them being facts and all.

I was merely pointing out that we do have the capacity to develop a significant solar industry, with some of the hottest spots in the world for the Sun. But yeh, like you said, retarded policies have ensured that this industry has had a mountain of difficulty getting of the ground in this country.

[Anonymous No.2460975]

>>2460963
really?

You seriously want to compare say Nigeria/Congo to Australia?

There is no doubt that in our history we have spread the wealth accomulated from the resources in this country towards the people compared to most other states. Yeh it may not have been as strong as in the past, but
today we still Tax those companies.