is it over after oil?

[Anonymous No.14611949]

>https://nitter.it/AJiazhang/status/1542132547009875975
>To anyone who thinks we’re 5 years from a revolutionary energy source sweeping in and leading us to post scarcity; I must urge you to read predictions from 1965, 75, 2000, etc. We have always been five years from an energy Revolution. Please understand our society…
>is essentially a one trick pony that has been running almost exclusively on hydrocarbons since our first stage of industrialization. The share of the worlds energy from nuclear has actually decreased since 1985. The reason for this that no one will tel you is…
>prohibitive cost. The responses will always be ‘BUT ITS THE GOVERNMENT!’ Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized? Once again nuclear power is a money sink that only makes sense for countries that want a nuke weapons program/proto-nuke weps program.
>Green energy is (a) intermittent and only reasonable for the electric grid (fraction of our energy use) but (b) is essentially accounting fraud.
>Green energy is basically china uses massive amounts of coal to produce energy intensive technologies like PV cells…
>then we ship it over here and call it green energy. It is double counted as coal burnt by china and then green energy for us. The actual ‘net energy’ from solar is probably negligible but is done simply as an expensive way to receive government subsidies.

[Anonymous No.14611988]

>>14611949
lmao, did you get the wrong board by a chance?

[Anonymous No.14611994]

>>14611988
energy production is not /sci/?

[Anonymous No.14612006]

>>14611994
Screaming MuH pRoHiBiTiVe CoSt ab about the silver bullet to the energy crisis is not /sci/, the sole reason nuclear is not more widespread is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation

>China

Literally cannot mine or import Uranium quickly enough, would face economic warfare if it attempted to do so

>Iran

Is plagued with literal glowies from Mossad+CIA+MI6+Probably also Russia hacking and bombing their nuclear infrastructure and m̶u̶r̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ assassinating their scientists

[Anonymous No.14612007]

>>14611949
>>Green energy is (a) intermittent and only reasonable for the electric grid (fraction of our energy use)
That's why we need electric vehicles. That's why we need heat pumps.

[Anonymous No.14612008]

>>14611994
thats /b/

[Anonymous No.14612079]

>>14611994
Well you didn't post a paper and instead posted some schizo tweet so I assume you were tourist from b or something. Feel free to corret your post accidents happen afterall

[Anonymous No.14612093]

>>14611949
> The reason for this that no one will tel you is…prohibitive cost
> Once again nuclear power is a money sink that only makes sense for countries that want a nuke weapons
This is a retarded statement to make on so many levels.
>Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized?
Russia gutted it's education when the USSR fell apart. China is rotted in corrupted at the core.

[Anonymous No.14612123]

>>14611949
Nobody cares

[Anonymous No.14612146]

>>14611949
>t.doesn't understand how economies of scale work

[Anonymous No.14612163]

>>14611949
Yeah, it's over for nuclear, don't let /sci/ retards fool you. However, renewables have only begun. Nothing's stopping us from creating a manufacturing process for solar which completely phases out coal. Furthermore the total emissions from manufacturing solar are negligible compared to burning it, yes even with China, yes even with shipping, scientists take all that into account when they asses the emissions of energy sources.

[Anonymous No.14612166]

>>14612163
> it's over for nuclear
>renewables have only begun
>I am only pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.14612172]

>>14611949
Its irrelevant whatever happens in the future. Nuclear, wind and solar, hydroelectric or 16th century agrarian economics, the same.

[Anonymous No.14612189]

>>14612166
Shut the fuck up. I'm tires of retarded /sci/ anons who know absolutely nothing about nuclear trying to defend it on here. It's an outdated energy source, it's obsolete.

The absolutely hilarious, hypocritical, and somewhat disturbing truth is that nuke tards will lambaste renewables for being accounting fraud and useless, when nuclear itself is accounting fraud and useless for us. If we're going to have to go over it again, the costs of storing spent waste far, far outweigh any profit you might make from a nuclear power plant, it's that simple.

[Anonymous No.14612207]

>>14612189
>Shut the fuck up
No.
>I'm tires
No one cares what you're tires off, retard.
>retarded /sci/ anons who know absolutely nothing about nuclear trying to defend it on here.
It's a clean, safe and efficient energy source.
>It's an outdated energy source, it's obsolete.
>outdated
What the fuck does that even mean? It's an energy source that has the capacity to output a tremendous amount of energy relative to the source of the physical material.
>The absolutely hilarious, hypocritical, and somewhat disturbing truth is that nuke tards will lambaste renewables for being accounting fraud and useless, when nuclear itself is accounting fraud and useless for us
Wow, look it's fucking nothing. Renewable is not feasible because it's geographically restrictive and resource bloated Oil and rare metals) ineffective larp cope by midwit pop-sci fantasy living brainets, such as yourself.
> If we're going to have to go over it again, the costs of storing spent waste far, far outweigh any profit you might make from a nuclear power plant, it's that simple.
Incorrect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

[Anonymous No.14612228]

>>14612189
>, the costs of storing spent waste far, far outweigh any profit you might make from a nuclear power plant, it's that simple.
How much it cost to produce a MwH of electricity with nuclear power once all the costs are included?

[Anonymous No.14612242]

>>14612207
>https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/17/when-nuclear-plants-expire-stick-the-taxpayers-with-the-bill-and-the-waste/
>Another factor in the current struggle to pay for decommissioning is rooted in a decades-long practice by utilities of omitting the costs of decommissioning from electricity bills in order to artificially lower rates and stay competitive in the market.
Storage of nuclear waste safely and effectively is already costing taxpayers billions per year.


It might seem peculiar how the cost per megawatt of nuclear has gone UP over the past 50 years, but it's actually very simple. Nuclear companies are starting to partially prices in the full cost of decommissioning and storage of the resulting waste.

>https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us#gs.4yin9y
>Nuclear security expert Rodney C. Ewing discusses how the United States' failure to implement a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage and disposal is costing Americans billions of dollars per year.
It's a problem with no solution, an infinite money pit. The more electricity you generate with nuclear, the more waste you accumulate, the more the ship sinks.
>I think it’s discouraging that we continue to release radioactivity to the environment because after more than 40 years we still have not developed a successful plan for going forward.
>We pay about half-a-billion dollars a year to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because there’s no place for it to go.
It's a half assed, idiotic power generation source. Maybe in an economy where you can force somebody to build and keep the nuclear waste safely stored by threat of a bullet in their head nuclear will work, comerade, but not here.

[Anonymous No.14612248]

>>14612242
Pic related btw. Also

>breeder reactors
HAHAHAHAHAH, so you want to throw even MORE money into the infinite money pit? Give me a break.

[Anonymous No.14612250]

>>14612242
>Storage of nuclear waste safely and effectively is already costing taxpayers billions per year.
>Maybe in an economy where you can force somebody to build and keep the nuclear waste safely stored by threat of a bullet in their head nuclear will work, comerade, but not here.
Watch the fucking video, you troglodyte.

[Anonymous No.14612268]

>>14612250
Yeah, I'm not going to watch your fucking meme video. One thing is certain over the past 50 years of operating nuclear power plants: waste must be stored safely and the costs associated with that are prohibitive. We spend 500 million per year babysitting the fuel already spent, you want to replace our entire grid with nuclear? Multiply that times 7 and compound it every decade or so.

[Anonymous No.14612273]

>>14611949
Peak oil has been 20 years away for the last 50 years. We'll simply start drilling in Antarctica or in deep sea
>>14612007
And where will the energy to power those vehicles will come from
>>14612163
Renewables are a meme, especially solar. You have to cover ungodly amounts of land with panels. Solar panels are capped at ~30 efficiency. You can't power industrial society with them.

[Anonymous No.14612274]

>>14612268
Literally a fucking retard in action, boys. In full glory. Feast your eyes on double digit IQ too fucking stupid and arrogant to have a conversation. Best he can offer is a schizo rant about something that's already been answered in the video he refuses to see. The circus will love their new addition.

[Anonymous No.14612287]

>>14612273
Renewables are not a meme. We can just cover up 50% of the desert nobody cares about and transport the electricity to where it needs to go. Set up a fuck ton of panels in Morocco, and electricity's solved. Furthermore efficiency isn't "capped" at 30%, we can go higher.

Furthermore, whoever said we need to generate electricity with solar panels? Methods for direct sun to hydrogen conversion exist, and hydrogen to hydrocarbon conversion exists as well. Hydrogen is easy to transport, same thing with hydrocarbons.

[Anonymous No.14612292]

>peak oil
>covid 19
>global warming
>food shortages
>evil computers and robots
>space aliens

[Anonymous No.14612294]

>>14612287
>We can just cover up 50% of the desert
>just
What a fucking retard. How are you going to deliver all of those resources to the desert, fairy dust?

[Anonymous No.14612315]

>>14612294
Uhh, instead of importing all that steel and shit for building from China to Europe, we send it to Morocco or Mexico.

[Anonymous No.14612325]

>>14612287
Sure, just waste ungodly amounts of money and energy covering desert, stretching wires across the globe, loosing energy in transfer. And ylu called nuclear a money sink
Current designs are, physically. Some better ones exist but they are prototypes
Hydrogen panels aren't particularly effective
Why the fuck would you waste perfectly good hydrocarbons on hydrogen

[Anonymous No.14612326]

>>14612315
Like using trucks and boats that use oil, you dimwit? We're already locked into 1.5 increase. Do you think all the infrastructure like roads and storage are just going to appear in the desert because you're doing the right thing. What a shortsighted stupid fucking cunt you are.

[Anonymous No.14612339]

>>14612325
>stretching wires across the globe, loosing energy in transfer.
What did I just say? We turn sunlight into hydrogen, no energy transfer losses. It'd be the equivalent of building a pipeline from north Africa to Europe, or Mexico to the US.

>Hydrogen panels aren't particularly effective
We have hydrogen panel designs with efficiency about equal to where normal photovoltaics were 20 years ago. The best part is that hydrogen panels don't suffer generation losses from heat, since it's a chemical based reaction, not a semiconductor one.

>Why the fuck would you waste perfectly good hydrocarbons on hydrogen
I will agree pursuing hydrogen generation from fossil fuels is a stupid idea, but thats not what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.14612383]

>>14612339
Gas transfer requires pipelines. And considering hydrogen is 4 times as less energy ense as methane they'll need to be much bigger. Plus you meed to worry about hydrogen going through metal
That's even lower efficiency

[Anonymous No.14612389]

China's probably doing most of the cutting edge research in the nuclear energy space. They even have a new shiny research MSFR. They plan on building commercial reactors based in this design in 10 years. Yes, they're working on the Thorium-based post-scarcity future.

[Anonymous No.14612397]

>>14612389
>Yes, they're working on the Thorium-based post-scarcity future.
They believe they're going to be a country in 10 years. That's so cute.

[Anonymous No.14612403]

>>14612383
Hydrogen is a baseline, we can convert it efficiently into more energy dense fuels

[Anonymous No.14612408]

>>14612397
Who cares. I just answered the rhetorical question
>Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized?
"They're working on it, nigger."

[Anonymous No.14612415]

>>14612408
>feeling attacked
lmao. You thought that was about you?

[Anonymous No.14612421]

>>14612415
Projecting.

[Anonymous No.14612427]

>>14612421
>I just answered
>Projecting.
10-4 social retard.

[Anonymous No.14612439]

>>14612242
>It might seem peculiar how the cost per megawatt of nuclear has gone UP over the past 50 years, but it's actually very simple
What is the cost per MwH of nuclear electricity including all indirect costs?

[Anonymous No.14612443]

>>14612427
Answer what? I told you I just answered your question and don't give a fuck about whether China will still exist in 10 years.
Then suddenly you claim I feel attacked and that I think this is about me or whatever. What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.14612450]

>>14612443
Yeah, I understand you're too socially inept to grasp a conversation flowing. I suggest we move on. Nothing is going to be gained in this interaction. Throw in a final fuck you, and we call it a day, yeah?

[Anonymous No.14612460]

>>14612450
I hope you feel better now at least.

[Anonymous No.14612463]

>>14612460
I do, thanks.

[Anonymous No.14612499]

>>14612463
You sound angry, tho.

[Anonymous No.14612507]

>>14612499
Cool, you sound like you want some attention, qt. Post more cat girls.

[Anonymous No.14612516]

>>14612507
>you sound like you want some attention
Why you keep @ing me?

[Anonymous No.14612519]

>>14612516
Because I understand how a conversation works. That's not a cat girl. Did you run out?

[Anonymous No.14612525]

>>14612519
So what about nuclear power, then?
China keeps investing and blows a lot of money on it. IIRC France is also planning to build some new plants, although not as forward looking in design as China's. And South Korea just keeps building them at the same low, low price they've always built them at. So clearly there is a lot of money spent on research, development and actually building these things.

[Anonymous No.14612526]

>>14612516
>>14612519
Stop both of you its very boring. Talk about energy not your inner feelings

[Anonymous No.14612534]

>>14612525
Yeah, the problem is public sentiment in EU in countries like Germany who are chortling down propaganda cock which spawned their green movement that have gained traction on their own. Nuclear is clearly the solution if we want any semblance of maintaining our current living standards but it's not looking good. Also, that's very cute catgirl.
>>14612526
You want in on the hug circle?

[Anonymous No.14612571]

>>14611949
>Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized?
Is this person retarded? Russia and China are nuclearizing, and Japan and France already have. Even without environmental motivations the US was on track to have over 50% of our power from nuclear until, ironically, retarded environmentalists nuked us back into the coal age.

[Anonymous No.14612573]

>>14612534
>public sentiment in EU in countries like Germany
I know. We don't even have the industry to build new plants any more. Siemens closed their nuclear department and universities stopped having nuclear engineering courses. Which means we'll have to import the designs for lots of $$$, or import energy from France and other more based neighbor countries. Who will of course, charge us for the privilege and we're back to being dependent on other countries for energy, even if inside the EU. That or keep burning coal, the greenest of energy sources.
Look at the shit Siemans says:
>Anyone looking to stay ahead of the game needs more than an “off-the-shelf” power plant. You need an individual power plant solution aligned with your objectives?
"Off-the-shelf" power plants are exactly what is needed to reduce costs and benefit from economies of scale. You design once and shit the same thing out 100 times. Even just the philosophy is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14612580]

>>14612403
>First, use innefective hydrogen splitter in Sahara supplied by distilled water
>then, carry that hydrogen to chemical plants plants to convert it to hydrocarbons
>then carry those hydrocarbons all over the globe, loosing even more energy
Absolute genius

[Anonymous No.14612593]

>the actual net energy from solar is probably negligible

Basically unfounded nonsense despite being the most important part of what he said.

What I will say is that as Coal/oil/gas EROI falls and renewable EROI takes some time to get up, there will be an energy slump of sorts, one we are already in.
IMO even ignoring how much of Fossil fuel EROI decline is political, IE because of divestment from fossil fuels due to climate change. In the long term this was always going to happen, peak oil was always real to a degree.
The solution is going to be renewables (and nuclear) and over a longer period there will likely be a renewables boom as a result, but right now we are in the slump.

[Anonymous No.14612644]

>>14612573
based gentoo catgirl
>keep burning coal, the greenest of energy sources.
kek
>"Off-the-shelf" power plants are exactly what is needed to reduce costs and benefit from economies of scale
true
>You need an individual power plant solution aligned with your objectives
You need something functional that works not a fucking swissarmy knife. EU grid is pretty based tho. Hooking up Ukraine to it in 2 weeks was pretty impressive to see. Hopefully thorium won't suffer the same fate nuclear did in Germany. Nothing is more pathetic than going back to coal while larping about curbing emissions. Literally traveling back in the energy tech tree.

[Anonymous No.14612753]

>>14612287
You need coal to make solar cells, and they don't work on cloudy days, in desert covered by sand can be a major issue, as it can cover the solar cells, not to say storms can completely destroy them, most solar panels last at best 5-6 years in normal residential places, before they have to be replaced due to maintenance.

[Anonymous No.14612767]

>>14611949
It can never be over for petroleum, without it civilisation wouldn't last. It isn't just a fuel for energy, but a raw material on which modern civilisation is based.

[Anonymous No.14612791]

*absolutely dabs on your utopian post scarcity dreams*

[Anonymous No.14612820]

>>14612593
>What I will say is that as Coal/oil/gas EROI falls and renewable EROI takes
EROI is not a real thing. In the real world (theres a world beyond your hallucinations) economic decisions are made about ROI, return on investment. How many dollars you get for each dollar you put in.

[Anonymous No.14612827]

>>14612753
But if you can make hydrocarbons from solar electricity then it doesnt matter if it gets cloudy sometimes

[Anonymous No.14612831]

>>14612644
>Hooking up Ukraine to it in 2 weeks was pretty impressive to see
Wow, that's impressive, indeed. The fact that the grid can handle that kind of load distribution is quite an achievement.
>>14612767
The plastic shit we make out of oil might well be worse than the smoke we release from burning it, so good riddance.
>>14612791
How does that work out when there is an almost infinite supply of some resource? We've got plenty of Thorium and even Uranium isn't really scarce. The only bottleneck is how many reactors we have to convert it into usable energy. It doesn't matter if energy demand increases 10x, 100x or even 10000x when supply still lasts millions of years. By that time we'll be using black holes to boil water.

[Anonymous No.14612856]

>>14612767
Shut the fuck up. I kill anyone that says oil is useful for many things besides fuel. I have killed hundreds so far so you know im serious.
Oil is used for fuel. That is its only reason to exist. Any other use is incidental, irrelevant or accidental, some dorks like rubbing crude oil on their skin as a balm, some boat builders rub it on wooden boats to make them waterproof. None of that shit is important and theres infinite alternatives. The only real use is fuel.

[Anonymous No.14612876]

>>14611949
>prohibitive cost
Either we have the material resources to build and operate nuclear plants or we don't. Money is just a system of control.

[Anonymous No.14612935]

>>14611949
>Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized?
lol USA's entire foreign policy is based on preventing Iran from getting nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.14612969]

>>14612753
>most solar panels last at best 5-6 years in normal residential places
Anon I think you're being a bit, well, how do I put this? A bit of a nuclear whore. Half of your post isn't even true.

[Anonymous No.14612985]

>>14612580
Retard, in hot places like the sahara, chemical conversion processes GAIN efficiency. When you perform endothermic reactions it happens faster, which fundamentally the entirety of sunlight to hydrogen conversion is endothermic. It incredibly easy to transport hydrocarbons and even hydrogen compared to electricity. Photovoltaics are semiconductors, they LOSE efficiency in hot environments.

At this point so much, SO MUCH of research and infrastructure has been invested into hydrogen, both storing it and uses for it, that it's practically mandatory we produce more efficient solar to hydrogen converters. We'll unironically be able to cover the Sahara after that.

[Anonymous No.14613039]

>>14611949
I have read "Limits to Growth" and I think civilization is going to collapse by 2050. There's no getting around the fact that we have depleted the Earth.

[Anonymous No.14613306]

>>14612248
It's amazing what you can do when you make outright bad assumptions for some sources and overly optimistic for others. Lazard's analysis only had what about 6 hours worth of storage included and assumed a nuclear plant is something like Vogle and only viable for 30 years. It's valuable insight if you have a few million kicking around and only want to contribute a small amount of grid power. However, if you are looking for guidance on what to do grid-wide, it's useless.

[Anonymous No.14613326]

>>14612207
The guy in your video doesn't address the massive costs of dealing with the waste. Just because most waste degrades in 50 years doesn't mean that it wont cost a fuck ton to store in the mean time.

[Anonymous No.14613383]

>>14613326
>cement
>glass
>dig a hole
>massive cost
Come again?

[Anonymous No.14613491]

>>14612189
Bitch you literally dump that shit at the bottom of an ocean trench if you really want to. The only reason the costs are so crazy for nuclear is people are complete ninnies about it.

[Anonymous No.14613521]

>>14611949
solar power is the answer
PV is getting cheaper, manufacturing more efficient, the panels themselves are more effective and energy mix is getting cleaner
meanwhile rich uranium ore is getting scarcer and reprocessing isn't getting any cheaper
nuclear power is for vaxxed bootlickers who love the government/corporate monopoly on energy
>The actual ‘net energy’ from solar is probably negligible
The actual ‘source‘ for that probably your asshole

[Anonymous No.14613605]

>>14613521
The problem isn't the cost of the panels. It's the amount of energy storage you need to get large amounts of renewables to work. You can ignore that when it's only about 10% of total capacity and you have plenty of gas to make up the difference but not if you're hoping to get >60%.

[Anonymous No.14613625]

>>14613383
First-world countries do a bit nee than that. But I guess in the Soviet Union it doesn't cost much. Station a few soldiers in the middle of Siberia so no Chechens dig it up to create a dirty bomb. If radioactivity leaks, replace the soldiers when they get lymphoma. Deny any responsibility.

[Anonymous No.14613632]

>>14612389
>They plan on building commercial reactors based in this design in 10 years
i bet they will be 10 years away in 10 years as well

[Anonymous No.14613638]

>>14613632
If they plan to build in 10 years, it will take 20 years until they deliver power. That means, it will be 2050 until they are wide-spread. It's just too late to replace coal. We should keep up r&d efforts, but not wait for that technology. We're also not waiting for iter

[Anonymous No.14613639]

>>14612876
>Either we have the material resources to build and operate nuclear plants or we don't. Money is just a system of control.
but if they cost goes high enough, it means you'll have to spend 80-90% of the human population working just on getting the power plants running and doing nothing else

[Anonymous No.14613642]

>>14613039
don't worry anon, collapse just means that we will all have to work as potato farmers, nothing bad will happen

[Anonymous No.14613780]

>>14613639
What could go wrong if you spend most of your budget and productivity on a single lost cause? It's not like the Soviet Union suffered this exact fate, r-right?

[Anonymous No.14613820]

>>14612985
You have zero fucking clue wtf you are talking about.
Transferring gas requires pipelines, which require energy to keep running, as well as shitton of time and money to build. And since you are using hydrogen you'll need to worry about it leaving through metal. Oh, and you'll need pipilines to be muvh bigger since it's less energy dense. And your hydrogen cells need to be supplied with water, which needs to be purified and transfered. Futhermore, you need to take hydrogen back

[Anonymous No.14613825]

>>14613605
True
But batteries are also getting cheaper by ~10% each year.
And with reasonable <60% in solar you can cover the daytime peak with only a limited storage to level out the demand for a short time. Night can be covered by hydroelectric and nukes.
As you said, above 60% the demands for storage grow disproportionately, but that's not even necessary.

[Anonymous No.14613841]

>>14613825
You forgot wind. Hydro is only viable if you have mountains. Also, biomass/biogas is an option to cover surge peaks if it's particularly cloudy.

[Anonymous No.14613850]

>>14612791
>Market resource distribution stands in the way of human progress.

Damn, i wonder if there will be any consequences from this.

[Anonymous No.14613874]

>>14613825
>But batteries are also getting cheaper by ~10% each year.
are they cheaper if you include how much oil was burned to mine the materials required and oil explodes in price?

[Anonymous No.14613876]

>>14613825
>>14613841
hydro and geotermical are the only things that make sense as replacements for oil

[Anonymous No.14613936]

>>14611949
>>prohibitive cost.
This is because of the government though. There's literally a sticker you can get which costs anywhere from $10-100,000 to get and it is almost entirely due to the government wanting a big fee for their inspectors when all they need to do is check extremely basic shit. It used to be much cheaper, and the costs were driven up a factor of 10 by admin bullshit.
>why haven't other countries completely nuclearized
France gets 70% of its energy needs met by fission.

[Anonymous No.14613947]

>>14613876
>replacements for oil
I'd like to see a car that can drive with hydro or geothermal power

[Anonymous No.14613956]

>>14613639
>but if they cost goes high enough, it means you'll have to spend 80-90% of the human population working just on getting the power plants running and doing nothing else
Yes but this is unlikely. Why would nuke plants cost this much? They are made of steel and cement, running them doesnt take millions of workers.

[Anonymous No.14613967]

>>14613947
Easy you just dont drive. Build tram lines everywhere problem solved. It isn't like you drive on random fields, you drive on roads that always have electric lines in parallel

[Anonymous No.14613968]

>>14613956
mining, processing and transporting the fuel without using oil

[Anonymous No.14614153]

>>14612274
All our problems in this era stem from massive egos and arrogant/confident ignorance. It's a plague of the post modern world.

[Anonymous No.14614170]

>>14612189
Enjoy your frequent blackouts solarfag

[Anonymous No.14614181]

>>14614170
You misunderstood. This guy said nuclear is obsolete. He's against nuclear energy.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20220628/france-may-restart-coal-fired-power-station-to-avoid-energy-shortage-this-winter/

[Anonymous No.14614196]

behold, green energy

[Anonymous No.14614451]

>>14611988
fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.14614554]

>>14614196
1) it's probably backup generator to the building to the left (out of shotú and the charger just happens to be installed next to it
2) even if it wasn't the case, 99% of people charge at home or work so this is more of an emergency charger so you don't get stranded on a particularly long road trip in the middle of nowhere
3) even if people regularly charged there, generator runs in ideal RPMs, so it's still marginally better than driving normal car where you idle, stop and accelerate all the time

[Anonymous No.14614709]

>>14613874
the same exact gotcha applies to uranium ore mining, processing and power plant maintenance/construction
>>14613841
wind is kinda dogshit for most places in terms of reliability, even though it's incredibly cheap

[Anonymous No.14614769]

>>14614709
yes, there's no real replacement to oil, it's just cope because nobody can imagine living using 5% of the energy we burn today and having to employ 80-90% of the population just on food production

[Anonymous No.14614803]

>>14614769
>Ted will win in the end
Pure kino

[Anonymous No.14614982]

>>14614769
no need to be so pessimistic
more than 15% of all energy we use is renewable
in terms of electricity it's 30% and rising
worst case scenario is roughly mid-20th century level of living standards

[Anonymous No.14614998]

>>14613968
It doesnt take 80% of the population to mine uranium. Your argument makes no sense, uranium isnt even scarce.Q

[Anonymous No.14615008]

>>14614982
depends how much the supply chains to build those renewable plants depended on oil

[Anonymous No.14615011]

>>14614769
>because nobody can imagine living using 5% of the energy we burn today and having to employ 80-90% of the population just on food production
Perfectly easy to imagine you are just mad its just your fantasy and not something thats actually going to happen. It doesnt matter if nuclear or renewables take more effort to make, you make them and just live like that. Money isn't real and if most people work on some kind of energy producing farm thats also acceptable

[Anonymous No.14615013]

>>14615008
>depends how much the supply chains to build those renewable plants depended on oil
Depends on transport, nothing depends on oil

[Anonymous No.14615022]

>>14615011
nigger, cheap oil is like ants finding a huge cake next to the hive, use it to build a huge hive, and then when the cake runs out expecting to maintain the same size of hive with "renewable leaves", it won't work

[Anonymous No.14615026]

>>14615022
call it "oil", call it "cheap energy easy to transport where it's needed", batteries are garbage and require ridiculous global supply chains just to build them

[Anonymous No.14615071]

>>14612242

>US regulators are greedy bandits
>therefore nuclear waste cannot be stored safely

Industrialized nations which are serious about clean energy - such as China, South Korea, Turkey, etc. will continue to effectively nuclearise and phase out all fossil fuels from their grid baseload.

[Anonymous No.14615153]

>>14612189
>>14612228
>>14612248
SHUT THE FUCK UP!

A SINGLE nuke is worth SIX renewables
Not including Batteries

This energy crisis is all on YOU and your delusions

[Anonymous No.14615197]

>>14615022
You have no evidence for any of that you just have a fantasy and are hysterical that not enough people support your random vision of the future.

[Anonymous No.14615201]

>>14615026
Whos even talking about batteries? Plain electric trains connected to the grid can do all transport

[Anonymous No.14615212]

>>14615201
lmao

[Anonymous No.14615215]

>>14615197
yeah yeah, let's just keep waiting for the magical nuclear and renewable without oil to cover for most expenses, it will happen any time now

[Anonymous No.14615223]

>>14615153
>A SINGLE nuke is worth SIX renewables
And? That doesn't make nuclear suddenly profitable.

>>14615071
Nuclear power plant projects are all the same. Lofty promises wrapped in a large, yet economical budget. Then politicians find out the budgets actually massive and they're going to have to dump billions into it, then they realize the state WONT EVEN MAKE MONEY from it in the long term. The project gets slapped around and strung along for a couple years until it gets canceled. Hence why countries like China and Iran where they can just put a bullet in your head if you don't comply are going nuclear.

[Anonymous No.14615236]

>>14615215
UK is unironically building 17. I repeat
Seven fucking teen nuclear reactors

France is building 15 and threatens to dismantle their renewables

Within 20 years, Nuclear would take over

Thankyou, Russia
Thankyou for showing the world the need for energy independence

[Anonymous No.14615242]

>>14615215
>>14615212
You have no evidence for any of your claims. All you do is dismiss perfectly valid energy sources because they dont fit in your fantasy

[Anonymous No.14615243]

>>14615223
SIX, BITCH BOY!
S.I.X

Your damn LCOE extends only to 4.
Not including batteries

YOU prove that it isn't profitable

[Anonymous No.14615252]

>>14611949
>nuclear isn't viable because nuclear is expensive
>let's just ignore France lmao
Nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuels, that's true enough, but it's within the same order of magnitude. Once/if oil prices skyrocket due to rarity it will become cheaper than oil. Nevertheless it will never be adopted because the general public has had the fear of nuclear so thoroughly ingrained into their minds than they'd rather live with the rolling blackouts from renewables than live within 100 miles of a nuclear plant.

[Anonymous No.14615253]

Peak oil has been lurking roughly 10 years off into the future since forever. The distance peak oil is from the horizon always scales with the price of oil, we were at peak oil in 2005 or so if you trust the experts.

[Anonymous No.14615254]

>>14615252
Not anymore>>14615236

Everyones having a brain now

[Anonymous No.14615259]

>>14615223
>profitable
Profit is a function of price, worst case the price just go up. Electricity costs are like 1% of the economy, if they rise to 3% no one will even notice. Wealth depends on total energy supply not on money, which is just an accounting system for trade

[Anonymous No.14615260]

>>14615253
False
Peak oil was reached in 2015

The amount of fossil fuel used for energy has been decreasing ever since

[Anonymous No.14615263]

>>14615236
trying to build, we will see in 15 years if any of those are up
>https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-united-states-georgia-atlanta-7555f8d73c46f0e5513c15d391409aa3

[Anonymous No.14615264]

>>14615252
>Nevertheless it will never be adopted because the general public has had the fear of nuclear
Common people dont decide anything

[Anonymous No.14615267]

>>14615263
Shut the fuck up over Vogtle

Your renewables brought this ENERGY CRISIS.

[Anonymous No.14615268]

>>14615242
>You have no evidence for any of your claims. All you do is dismiss perfectly valid energy sources because they dont fit in your fantasy
neither do you have any evidence that any of those plants can be built in a world without oil, it's just a fantasy

[Anonymous No.14615271]

>>14615267
renewables are a meme, but nuclear is also a meme, it's just cope for having no replacement for oil

[Anonymous No.14615273]

>>14615259
>Profit is a function of price, worst case the price just go up.
True, I suppose in a post oil economy nuclear wouldn't have anything to compete against, so is price can go up enough to cover the costs. You got me there.

[Anonymous No.14615276]

>>14615271
Say all you wish
Nuclear is the ONLY way to escape Russian control

[Anonymous No.14615279]

>>14615263
What we have seen is that when theres modest energy shortages all red tape is cut in a microsecond. Many coal plants are being dusted off, the railways are rusty but built already.

[Anonymous No.14615282]

>>14613521
>>14612856
>>14612268
>>14612242
>>14612189
>>14612163

How much is Exxon paying you to post this?

[Anonymous No.14615289]

>>14615268
Im not the one making crazy claims like a prophet. No one can see the future but as far as anyone can see you can electrify everything. You say no because "magical reason". Loser.

[Anonymous No.14615290]

>>14615279
the economy is still in free fall and it's not getting better any time soon

[Anonymous No.14615310]

>>14615290
>the economy is still in free fall and it's not getting better any time soon
The economy depends on energy so less energy= Less wealth. This is true. Doesn't mean more coal and nuclear can't be brought online (medium term coal long term nuclear) . You are doing hysterical extrapolations where a 3% drop in power generation equals the end of all electricity with zero recovery or future growth.

[Anonymous No.14615340]

>>14615282
Is Exxon a producer of solar panels?

[Anonymous No.14615911]

https://archive.org/details/WilliamEngdahlACenturyOfWar/page/n85/mode/1up?view=theater

Nuclear energy was Fudded ad nauseum as its a self-sovereign source of energy and allows a nation to break free of the petrodollar system.

Why I am most bullish on Nuke tech that pumps fossil fuels, like SMR's supplying the heat load to refine heavy crude

Tar sands becomes green

Green with radium that is

[Anonymous No.14615948]

>>14615911
Simpsons does not pay for Russian gas.

[Anonymous No.14615963]

Thoughts on using gridscale (not rooftop) renewables to directly power time-insensitive energy-intensive processes? For example, building a wind farm not connected to the grid that just directly powers massive condensing towers that extract water from the atmosphere in water scarce region. Or hydrogen production if we end using it for trucking or something. Or atmospheric carbon extraction. Or desalination. Or something like that. We have a lot of very energy demanding tasks that can operate intermittently as renewables produce power.

[Anonymous No.14615980]

>>14615963
Stop promoting interminent energy sources.
Unstable grids ruin devices in the long run

[Anonymous No.14615997]

>>14611949
Yes, thanks for that info, most of us are well aware of the economic realities of energy production. But nuclear is not prohibitively expensive, its just very expensive. Which is the real reason why we will continue using fossil fuels for as long as they remain cheaper than nuclear. Then at the tipping point there will be a surge of media related posts about "safe clean nuclear energy" as Governments and Corporations switch the narrative to suit the circumstances. And the normies will forget all about their fears because all the normies care about is being warm, entertained, and getting to work on time. At the same time green energy generation will be quietly forgotten about except for a few niche and supplementary uses.
Of course there will be a host of gradual ancillary effects, some of which we are already witnessing to some extent. Declining standards of living. Calls for more durable consumer products. More taxes placed on guiding people towards sustainable living. Increasingly more authoritarian governments. But on the other hand there will also be some improvements. Such as less pollution and restructuring of societies away from the current rat race.
The only fly in the ointment is this: If the world shifts primarily to using nuclear power how much uranium is available as the fuel source? Some estimates ( which includes extraction from seawater as well ) give an upper bound of only 30 years if nuclear entirely replaced all other energy production globally. That's not counting other factors such as the availability of the exotic metals needed in the construction of reactors.
The solution of course would be to reduce the world population by 95%, but in that case fossil fuel energy would no longer be a problem.
Then another solution would be for one country to establish absolute global hegemony, its stable population of citizens enjoying 21st century living stands while the rest of the world regresses to 19th century standards. Hardly likely.

[Anonymous No.14616046]

>>14615980
Did you read anything I wrote? I'm specifically talking about using intermittents offgrid for industrial applications.

[Anonymous No.14616058]

>>14616046
I know and it doesn't matter
If it's unstable, it would ruin the device.

The only reason to have interminent sources it is if it's for something like water heating, milling grains, and or irrigation
But for communation and entertainment devices?
Oh no no no. You don't want your motherboard getting fried

[Anonymous No.14616060]

>>14615997
So...so you are saying....let me get this straight...you are saying that....we are fucking fucked? As in fucking big time fucking fucked? Well. I never.

[Anonymous No.14616091]

>>14616058
Dude are you fucking illiterate. Read the god damn post before responding. I'm talking about using gridscale renewables for onsite industrial power generation, not connected to the grid, when production is not time sensitive and intermittent power production can be matched to intermittent power usage. Things like your examples, which you would know if you could fucking read. I was asking if the economics had been studied at all.

[Anonymous No.14616092]

>>14616058
So we agreed that you cant read

[Anonymous No.14617050]

>>14612287
>Cover Sahara in solar panels to stop Climate Change.
>Political climate changes, now Sahara-OPEC says no power for you unless you do their bidding.
Ironic.

[Anonymous No.14617092]

>>14616060
I would not say fucking fucked as in fucking big time fucking fucked.
Its not quite like that.
Its more that we are fuckingly well fucked as in well and truly fucked.

[Anonymous No.14617101]

>>14617050
Sahara is French clay, they do what they are told or get coup'd

[Anonymous No.14617103]

>>14615997
>give an upper bound of only 30 years if nuclear entirely replaced all other energy production globally
Some estimates? Some person said something? This a a fiction.

[Anonymous No.14617106]

>>14617101
How do you route the cables?

[Anonymous No.14617111]

>>14617101
Ah, yes.
Use threat of force to subdue a nation known for terror attacks.

A nation that holds your most valuable stuff

Stop living in the clouds and get some brain.
Peace can never be attained by relying on others for vital goods

[Anonymous No.14617124]

>>14617101
Are you a Frenchman whose FUDing Nuclear Power and coming up with all these harebrained scenarios?
That would be even more ironic.

[Anonymous No.14617131]

>>14617111
What nation would that be?

[Anonymous No.14617133]

>>14617106
Through land and the sea

[Anonymous No.14617135]

Nuclear power is viable but it needs to evolve past the government contractor phase of its technology development.
For example space travel didn’t break free of it’s bloated government rocket designs until SpaceX figured their shit out.
We’d need a SpaceX equivalent in Nuclear power to finally kill off bloated & inefficient plant designs.

[Anonymous No.14617137]

>>14617131
One you better not trust to provide goods that you cannot live wthout

[Anonymous No.14617138]

>>14617137
Whats the name of that country?

[Anonymous No.14617140]

>>14617135
Already on the way.
Russian pressure finally forced the politicians and climate activists to shut the fuck up and let the ones with a brain do their fucking job

Natural selection is unforgiving once pressure from predator finally arrives

[Anonymous No.14617145]

>>14617133
How much losses are you expecting?
>>14617135
If Elon Musk fucks up, a phalloid drops in the ocean. If he fucks up really bad, it falls on some people, maybe 1-2 school shootings worth of deaths, the damages would be peanuts for Elon. If a power plant has a major accident, who's gonna pay? They are literally uninsurable. So in the end, the government has to cover it

[Anonymous No.14617146]

>>14617145
There's been 2 incidents in 70 years
Get a life and get some new arguments

[Anonymous No.14617152]

>>14617146
There have been one one hundred accidents and several times that incidents

[Anonymous No.14617154]

>>14617145
Loses of what

[Anonymous No.14617155]

>>14617152
It's the lowest deaths per kWh get a fucking life

[Anonymous No.14617159]

>>14617135
>SpaceX
how is SpaceX not a government company?

[Anonymous No.14617162]

>>14617145
What Atomic SpaceX (AtomX?) would need is basically a way to rapidly test prototypes for their reactor designs.
Because the way SpaceX got to it’s current point was through rapid prototyping.
The ways you could do rapid prototyping are to shrink down the reactor size so if there’s an accident, it’s less messy.
Or, you go to a place where you can afford to have accidents and can clean it up the easiest, like the desert or a bunker.
A major reason why Chernobyl was so messy is because the plant is basically in a swamp, so the nuclear material ejected was immediately absorbed by the swamp soil.

[Anonymous No.14617173]

The truth is you can set a lot of these PV farms in southern Spain

[Anonymous No.14617174]

>>14617159
Are you ok?
SpaceX’s board of directors is a who’s who of venture capitalists.
>B-b-but the government uses SpaceX’s rockets and prohibits them (and all rocket making corporations in the US) from legally interacting with foreign countries.
Ok and?

[Anonymous No.14617196]

>>14617154
Not him but,
I’m assuming other Anon meant loss of electrical energy over distance.
Which a real thing.

The reason why oil and gas can be pumped and shipped for such long distances is because it stores chemical energy. It stays stable with almost no energy loss until you destabilize it (with combustion)
Electricity is in an inherently destabilized state, and is constantly trying to shed energy via heat the entire distance it’s traveling along a wire. (Thermodynamics)

You could convert the electric energy to chemical energy, like how a battery does.
But batteries require exotic materials to make so it’s usually cheaper to just run a power line for short distances.
Then you’d just build a new power station for farther distances, and ship fuel to the power plant.
Conserves more energy overall that way and is cheaper.

[Anonymous No.14617205]

>>14613625
>First-world countries do a bit nee than that
yeah, like building a residential neighborhood on top of Love Canal

[Anonymous No.14617244]

>>14617174
so it's not a capitalist company, it's a government company?

[Anonymous No.14617352]

>>14612189
Suck my dick, bitch.

[Anonymous No.14617357]

>>14617155
>get a fucking life
>shills nuclear companies for free
>instead of being clever about his shilling, he just posts lies that are debunked in a second

[Anonymous No.14617368]

>>14617154
Power
>>14617162
As long as they find insurance, they can prototype however they like
>A major reason why Chernobyl was so messy is because the plant is basically in a swamp, so the nuclear material ejected was immediately absorbed by the swamp soil.
Well, the fallout came down in half of Europe, I'm sure there's more than one reason it became so messy. I actually don't think that Chernobyl could repeat. The technology became intrinsically safer than graphite rods and these days you would just be prepared to dump shitloads of neutron poison into your reactor.

[Anonymous No.14617375]

harvest the solar wind

[Anonymous No.14617377]

>>14617196
>Not him but,
Simp

[Anonymous No.14617382]

>>14617368
>Power
Perhaps 20%

[Anonymous No.14617389]

>>14611949
Hold up.
>Predictions for renewable energy consistently failed
>Therefore don't get your hopes up for it
>Predictions about climate consistently failed
>Therefore WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE if we don't act NOW

[Anonymous No.14617396]

>>14617389
>>Predictions about climate consistently failed

[Anonymous No.14617398]

>>14617396
Broken clock is right twice a day. notwithstanding, show the rest of that article and not just the sensationalized title. I'll wait for you to actually read it first, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.14617420]

>>14617398
The rest of the articles is basically interviews with scientists doing picrelated, not interesting. What was your point?

[Anonymous No.14617434]

>>14617420
nobody cares if the tundra defrosts

[Anonymous No.14617440]

>>14617434
Nobody cares if you kill yourself, but guess which of the two events are predicted by climate models.

[Anonymous No.14617482]

>>14617389
>>Predictions about climate consistently failed
>>Therefore WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE if we don't act NOW
the thread is about peak oil, not about climate change

[Anonymous No.14617493]

>>14615340
Exxon is the producer of the fuel required to attempt your retarded larp. Your theater props don't just fucking appear overnight. A reality you're clearly not aware of.

[Anonymous No.14617495]

>>14617440
climate models are fake but also it would not matter if the climate were to get warmer

[Anonymous No.14617507]

>>14617495
defrosted Siberia will just make the russians even more powerful

[Anonymous No.14617524]

>>14617495
Sauce for either?

[Anonymous No.14617549]

>>14617524
The source is the lack of sources for the opposite idea. Climate models have not been proven to have any predictive value. And also no one has proven that a hotter weather is bad.
The only bad effect of a hotter weather would be fixable with infrastructure investment, namely there would be water scarcity in regions that depend on glacier melt for their summer water. These places will have to build artificial reservoirs and dams to catch the winter rains

[Anonymous No.14617564]

>>14617549
Look, your takes and "predictions" are so fucking retarded that I can't really believe that someone would believe this unironically. But in the 1% chance that you are a literal mongoloid with access to the internet, click these links, see if you can make out some words and you will realize that everything you just said is wrong.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf
inb4 "I was only pretending to be a retard"

[Anonymous No.14617573]

>>14617564
All these words have zero value. Zero predictive value.

[Anonymous No.14617576]

>>14617573
Define predictive value.

[Anonymous No.14617588]

>>14617576
Lmao what a retard. Are you 3 years old? You dont know what a prediction is?

[Anonymous No.14617605]

>>14617588
I showed you a 126-page document evaluating climate models. In less than two minutes you concluded that there is no predictive value. So I am wondering if we have the same idea of predictive value. I'm suspecting that you have some sperg definition like "How can you know their predictive value if we can only know the truth in the future?"

[Anonymous No.14617799]

>>14617605
I have seen that document before. You think your cult is new? You think you have secrets to share?

[Anonymous No.14617822]

>>14617799
I honestly did not expect someone who knows how the models are evaluated to claim that the models are not evaluated. What do we do about that now? Do I call you a retard and you go back to licking glue?

[Anonymous No.14617880]

>>14611949
>To anyone who thinks we’re 5 years from a revolutionary energy source sweeping in and leading us to post scarcity
I don't think any non-crazy person is claiming we'll be off of oil in five years.

>>14612006
>sole reason nuclear is not more widespread is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation
That's not at all why you dumb weaboo. People are scared of nuclear for plenty of other (mostly completely wrong) reasons.

[Anonymous No.14617882]

>>14612189
>nuclear itself is accounting fraud and useless for us
wtf are you talking about

[Anonymous No.14617888]

>>14612287
>Renewables are not a meme. We can just cover up 50% of the desert nobody cares about and transport the electricity to where it needs to go. Set up a fuck ton of panels in Morocco, and electricity's solved. Furthermore efficiency isn't "capped" at 30%, we can go higher.
You forgot about night time you goof.

[Anonymous No.14617956]

>>14617396
Most people are still living with their heads in the clouds. With good reason. There have been far too many cry wolf in the past. But the reality is represented in your pic, it is happening but its mostly out of sight. For now. When the shit hits people's lives it going to be like a dam bursting. Its going to be sudden, its going to accelerate hard, and its going to be unexpected. There going to be some real hard times coming along. The only unknown is exactly when.

[Anonymous No.14617963]

>>14611949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFgAE5SgFnw

Some people are fucking slow.
I knew this when I was a child.

BUT, if we had any people with money that gave a shit, biofuel could literally take carbon from the atmosphere and make fuel use much more cyclical than it is today (which isn't cyclical at all).
But then we'd have a food crisis. Not from a lack of land btw.

[Anonymous No.14617967]

>>14612292
It's like a jar of flies.
A painful slow death.

[Anonymous No.14617971]

>>14617357

[Anonymous No.14617972]

>>14617092
Respectfully I disagree. While your analysis contains some merits it is my educated opinion that the scenario will be far more likely to be:
Fucked beyond all fuckingly fucked up fucking fuckarsery.

[Anonymous No.14617973]

>>14612499
>>14612525
You leave Jahy out of this. She is my wife. MINE!

[Anonymous No.14617977]

>>14617967
how much does a jar of flies weighs?

[Anonymous No.14617981]

>>14617956
>When the shit hits people's lives it going to be like a dam bursting
No it wont.

[Anonymous No.14617986]

>>14617972
Hmm, yes, I can see the point you are trying to make, but having run the data again I suspect your have miscalculated the extent of the fuckarsey.

I hereby submit the alternative outcome as the probable result of the current energy dilemma facing Humanity:

Completely fucked up and fuckingly fucked big time-whoop-whoop-pa-tang fucked with fucking cherries and lashings of total arse fuckery.

[Anonymous No.14617987]

>>14614554
I agree, the savings in efficiency are really at the engine level of the car. It's probably more efficient than a moving car engine most of the time.
It's definitely better for reducing smog to a degree if your state has hydro or geo.
But I bet it's better for reducing smog just from better engine efficiency and less requirements for oil transport trucks to stations.

But really those stations should have solar and multiple batteries for most of them to be more efficient as an entire resource chain in the economy - the true measure of economic and environmental efficiency.
We can't really work that out btw.. most of that line is overseas and we don't know what percent of it is being made by what resource material and how much resources it takes to get that material, transport it, etc.

This is why i consider it total crap generally. It's a naive assumption on the chain of resource usage.

[Anonymous No.14617993]

>>14617981
>No it wont.
That's a bit like saying the assassination of one guy wouldn't start a world war.

[Anonymous No.14617995]

>>14617977
Depends on how fat the flies are.
Which isn't that fat at all given the starvation situation they're in.
It probably stabilises quickly though due to the lack of food. That's all I know. Well... assuming the flies don't eat each other.

[Anonymous No.14618001]

>>14617993
Cool you can predict the future, tell me should REITs invest in coastal properties? You should buy some cheap inland bush and wait for the beach to come to you

[Anonymous No.14618005]

>>14617956
There won't be no dam bursting because that's not how Climate Change works

It's would force people to migrate over time but that's it. That's all there is to it

[Anonymous No.14618006]

>>14617986

My dear chap, you have obviously omitted some of the key data, for when I run the simulations the answer I get is as follow:

Just fucking fucking fucking fucking fucked and even more fucked than that plus one.

Which, as I am sure you will agree, a much more elegant model to describe life on this planet in the near future.

[Anonymous No.14618012]

I hate these threads

[Anonymous No.14618023]

>>14618012
are those activated almonds?

[Anonymous No.14618025]

>>14618012
I love em, they remind me just how delusional people in our society really are, both in this thread and outside of this thread.

>>14618023
kek

[Anonymous No.14618037]

>>14617956
>There have been far too many cry wolf in the past.
Really? In my lifetime I remember acidic rain, seeing pictures of dead forest and by reducing pollution, the rain is not sour anymore. The ozone hole was a topic, I remember that it had to do with spray cans and refrigerators. I was very little, so I was a bit afraid of our refrigerator, but I don't think, we should consider society as stupid as a 5-year old. The ozone hole is healing since the ban of HCFC. Maybe I have some bias in my memory, but to me this sounds like in the past scientists warned about something, politicians actually listened and did something about it, which had a measurable effect. When did they cry wolf and there wasn't a wolf?
>There going to be some real hard times coming along. The only unknown is exactly when.
There are some people who claim that the civil war in Syria is a consequence of climate change. An unusually long drought destabilized their society, radicalizing citizens, driving them to ISIS, al-Nusra and other "rebels". Rightoids went crazy when a hundreds of thousands Syrians suddenly showed up because they did not want to be gassed by Assad or bombed by Putin. My fear is that it will be this tenfold. If some extreme weather event destabilizes more than just Syria, conflicts will erupt. If a third of Africa doesn't have water or food anymore, they will go to where there is water and food. And they will fight. And where there are fights, there are human rights violations and millions of refugees. The question about Europe is: How many refugees have to be drowned or shot by Frontex before the riots start in Europe? Fuck, I'm really not looking forward to that.
I hope one day I understand why the Europeans who don't like refugees refuse to do anything about climate change or outright deny it. Are they really really stupid? Or do they hope that conflict leads to a power vacuum and that's when they can strike?

[Anonymous No.14618039]

>>14616060
Nah man, he's lying.
We're good until the universe dies.
Then we're fucked.

That's a few billion years.
But god dammit we're trying to make it less than 10 years really hard at this rate.

[Anonymous No.14618044]

>>14618005
>It's would force people to migrate over time but that's it.
If the effect is a strong drought, then that time could boil down to few years. If that leads to a local conflict or war, it would rather happen in weeks or months.

[Anonymous No.14618049]

>>14618005
>that's not how Climate Change works
I agree. That is not how it works. What does happen though is an increase in the probability of extreme weather events occurring that will have a significant impact on food production and water availability. As CC progresses not only does the probability increase but also the extent. Just that would be sufficient to spark local conflicts, both domestic and international, that in turn ignite other events. A small war over water rights and domestic unrest over food shortages could spiral into wider conflicts, spurred on by opportunistic governments, followed by waves of refugees that make recent migration look insignificant in comparison. Now lets say you get several years of such widely severe weather events in a row, which affect large areas of prime agricultural land. Now top that off with yet another pandemic or two, but ones which are actually dangerous. That's when the shit blows up real fast. When people are hungry and scared, when they have already been polarized over the past few decades by various issues, they will become ugly. In the fallout even more damage will be done, to infrastructure, to institutions, to social integrity, thus reinforcing the extent of the damage already done.

[Anonymous No.14618052]

Hey guys if we just sacrifice 7 billion people to God everything will be just fine and God will grant us the ability to inverse entropy and make matter from the clap of our ass cheeks.
I say we start with America though. They ought to be worth a fair amount given the size of those fat motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.14618058]

>>14618044
>>14618049
pfft
There would be as much destruction of land as there are now new available land.
Every conflict and shortages would be completely temporary and eventually, people would adapt

Earth has been through cycles after cycles of changes. Equilibrium would be met again and again

[Anonymous No.14618060]

>>14618052
Actually based

[Anonymous No.14618064]

>>14618058
>Earth has been through cycles after cycles of changes. Equilibrium would be met again and again
Yeah, but that's what we would like to avoid. In the worst case, that equilibrium does not include us.
On a much smaller level: Europe has never been this peaceful since Romulus sucked that wolf's teat. Doesn't mean anyone wants to go back

[Anonymous No.14618071]

>>14618037
>>There have been far too many cry wolf in the past
You are right, there have been some cases where effective intervention has resulted in a positive outcome, such as those you have mentioned.
However I am referring to the disdain many people feel towards call for action against climate change based on fear mongering that was widely inaccurate and made ludicrous predictions which were obviously incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14618077]

>>14618071
>based on fear mongering that was widely inaccurate and made ludicrous predictions
But which predictions do you mean? I don't mean the mocking ones by people who obviously don't believe in climate change, like "Yeah sure, 5 years from now, the Netherlands will be underwater"

[Anonymous No.14618081]

>>14618058
Some people would be able to adapt, certainly. North America is a prime example, where the bulk of the population would move north, and where the existing infrastructure, available technology and existing manufacturing base already exist to facilitate such a move. In other regions of the world the results would be far more catastrophic.

[Anonymous No.14618089]

>>14618081
>>14618064
Do not misunderstand.
I know that Climate Change MUST be fixed but the thing is, fear mongering about it only makes the situation worse primarily because Climate Change itself is a market on its own.

Every single goods that claim that it is good for the environment ends up being so much more harmful than it its plastic counterpart. And yet also costs more.

Not to mention that for every prediction that you inevitably gets wrong (because >hurr only 4 years left, buy our crap now) you end up embolding the ones who deny it.

So chill out. There is time

Advocate nukes.
Advocate trains
Rally for glass bottles
Double taxes on sugar
Force Americans to get fit
Reveal the dark secrets of green tech and EVs
And force the rights to repair

Politicians hold the highest power here but they are empowered by the push of the group

[Anonymous No.14618095]

>>14618089
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14618102]

>>14618095
In my opinion he's a bit too relaxed and conveniently ignores turning points, but his assessment is more scientific than 90% of the posts here on /sci/ (ok, most of them are written by actual poltards, so the bar is rather low)

[Anonymous No.14618107]

>>14618095
>>>/trash/
Diverting with that statement is nothing but a trash post.
Retort the points or get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.14618125]

>>14618077
Well actually sea level for one, since you mention it, but also droughts, famines, mass fish stocks die offs, widespread species die off. But its the time predictions and extent that are wrong. Saying dumb shit like [insert place or country] will be underwater by 2010 is an example. Or stating that 200 million will die of starvation in [insert place or country] is another. When these things dont happen people begin to turn off and begin to doubt the reasonable ( and usually far less specific ) warnings. Meanwhile the more insidious stuff, like the thawing of the tundra, and the mass die off of some species that that no one has ever seen or heard of, gets ignored.

[Anonymous No.14618134]

>>14617972
>>14617986
>>14618006
I hate you sciency types, always trying to bamboozle us with your fancy jargon and your fancy data.

[Anonymous No.14618138]

>>14611949
>The share of the worlds energy from nuclear has actually decreased since 1985. The reason for this that no one will tel you is…
>>prohibitive cost. The responses will always be ‘BUT ITS THE GOVERNMENT!’ Okay then why hasn’t Russia or China or Iran completely nuclearized? Once again nuclear power is a money sink that only makes sense for countries that want a nuke weapons program/proto-nuke weps program.
what a most blatant kike shill
still supporting nuclear
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14618143]

>>14618138
Go eat Russian gas

[Anonymous No.14618144]

>>14613642
I think it's going to be kino as long as we have arms to not be raided

[Anonymous No.14618163]

>>14613642
At least life will have some meaning again. For the survivors anyway.

[Anonymous No.14618175]

>>14618143
>he wouldn't sniff dat (g)ass

[Anonymous No.14618182]

>>14618125
But isn't the sea level rise connected to Greenland and Antarctica, which have not yet melted?
>Saying dumb shit like [insert place or country] will be underwater by 2010 is an example. Or stating that 200 million will die of starvation in [insert place or country] is another.
Did any scientist ever say that? I agree, it's a dumb thing to say, but did any scientist ever say that? Apart from that, floods and droughts are already reality. A couple years ago, Germany lost billions due to a drought, thousands of farmers needed government bailout. Sure, in a globalised world, drought does not mean famine where people starve on the dry, sandy ground.

[Anonymous No.14618335]

HAAHAHHAHAAAHAHAAha!

You were warned
And you fucking laughed!

GET FUCKED!

[Anonymous No.14618424]

Greenpeace is the Westboro Baptist Church of environmentalism.

Ignore absolutely anything they have to say. Gouge out your eardrums before you allow yourself to listen to their shit.

[Anonymous No.14618429]

>>14611949
The fuck you worried about fucking energy and shit? Haven't you noticed governments locking people up allegedly for a fucking flu the past 2 fucking years right next to the magnetic pole shift playa? You blind or something motherfucker? If you're a city slicker you might as well worry about how crispy your testicles will taste after EMPCOE when plasma from this flat fucking earth fries your booty while daddy gov is locking you the fuck up for your own good.

[Anonymous No.14618439]

>>14618335
Crazy fucking career, football player, federal minister and now this?

[Anonymous No.14618445]

Nuclear energy is suppressed by the state because it's "dangerous". Once oil runs out, it would be forced to either lift the suppression, or to throw insane amounts of resources into developing everything itself.

[Anonymous No.14618589]

>>14618445
It's outright happening in front of you, dumbass

The Renniassance is now. Right here. Right now

States started unbanning nukes.
They extended their service
And plans are now on the way

A lesson learned the hardway but a lesson nonetheless.

LMAO
Eat shit, Greenfags!

[Anonymous No.14618593]

>>14611949
Might as well ask here

What happened to Fukushima? Isn't radiation from there slowly killing us all?

[Anonymous No.14618609]

>>14618593
lol no
LMAO

It's radiation right at ground 0 was so damn low you can stay there for an entire week and you would recieve less than 2msv
You recieve 5mSv in a year
You need 500mSv to raise cancer rate by 5%

Dangerous to inhabit for living but hilariously harmless and not worth panicking about

[Anonymous No.14618612]

>>14612093
>Russia gutted it's education when the USSR fell apart.
That isn't the reason. It's because people used education as a coping mechanism to flee from the horrendous reality in soviet Union

[Anonymous No.14618616]

>>14618612
Cope has become the new buzzword
Preserve the natural habitat of memewords and use appropriate words, you nutsack

[Anonymous No.14618960]

>>14617244
A company that lifts material into space, and one of the customers is funded through the government. Although I already knew you were retarded

[Anonymous No.14618962]

>>14617799
absolutely btfo

[Anonymous No.14618969]

>>14618612
Right, people are fleeing USSR for 30 years after the collapse of USSR. They're just really slow.

[Anonymous No.14618971]

>>14617993
That was just the casus belli.

[Anonymous No.14619529]

Statement: Is it over after oil?
Answer: no.
Reasoning: Societies existed before oil.
Definition required: it.

>>14612292
What the doomsayers get wrong is that it will all happen at once.

[Anonymous No.14619613]

>>14611949
Nuclear (breeder) reactors are basically that magical source completely unironically.
France, being a large industrialized nation, without breaking a sweat, managed to convert 80% of its electricity demand to nuclear power in 20 years. If they kept up the pace for the last 20 years, they could've already been at clean energy electrified society.

>b-but muh monez, muh costs, muh LCOE
It's all about EROEI and nuclear (especially breeder) reactors are the king. There will come a time (likely in the coming decades, when hight EROEI oil starts to run out and shale oil is garbage in that regard, being at like 2, which is unsustainable) where retards will actually realize that imaginary fiat currency cannot keep the lights on which will force them to think in EROEI terms and actually go hard for nuclear as a base load.

[Anonymous No.14619652]

>>14618960
it's planned economy either way, not market economy, it wouldn't work without the government putting their hands into your pocket and deciding what to do with the money

[Anonymous No.14619999]

I would say we are fucked. But that's only a rough estimate. More funding is needed.

[Anonymous No.14620871]

>>14612273

Electric vehicles empower solar, wind, and other intermittent energy generation methods by allowing for greater stage capacity. Tesla is known for promoting this 'distributed grid' that also uses power wall home energy storage devices.

In addition to the storage support that they could provide to the entire grid, they can also promote distributed energy production with home-scale solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Whether through Tesla or anyone else, there is a strong case for a less centralized grid as part of of a petroleum-reduced grid. Sure coal is likely to be burned to mine or ship the inputs for these batteries, but there are innovations behind made in mining and especially bulk goods transportation to reduce the net impact.

[Anonymous No.14620881]

>>14619999
Actually, funding is only needed because politicians refuse to act unless they are told exactly how deeply we are fucked. Is it 20.2cm or 20.3cm? By refusing to act and rather funding more research, they are stalling until it's someone else's problem. That's why dictators outright deny climate change, there's no point in stalling for them.