Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    thoughtelemental

    + friends - friends
    12,768 link karma
    3,107 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 1 points ago in worldnews

    Have the torpedoes been adjusted for the tachyon particle spread using the deflector array?

    [–] '4°C of global warming is optimal' – even Nobel Prize winners are getting things catastrophically wrong thoughtelemental 1 points ago in Economics

    Hello all, the above is one of several articles criticising the mainstream economic models used by the IPCC and policymakers when discussing our ongoing climate crisis.

    Here's an additional presentation by Professor Stephen Keen of UCL, presented to a special OECD conference on "Averting Systemic Collapse": https://youtu.be/vwwvZ8g5eHE

    In the presentation, Keen critiques the work of Nordhaus and the assumptions made by economists in the IPCC reports.

    And here's yet another paper critiquing the mainstream economic approach: https://phys.org/news/2020-07-climate-economics-nobel-good.html

    I'm curious what other economists make of his arguments. The critiques seem compelling, would love to hear if people agree with them, and if not, why?

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 1 points ago * (lasted edited an hour ago) in worldnews

    I'm not a priori ruling it out, i'd love to see a cost-benefit matrix comparing the various technologies. Here are some considerations for the points I brought up:

    This one on delays and cost-overruns https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities-back-out-deal-build-novel-nuclear-power-plant

    Plans to build an innovative new nuclear power plant—and thus revitalize the struggling U.S. nuclear industry—have taken a hit as in recent weeks: Eight of the 36 public utilities that had signed on to help build the plant have backed out of the deal. The withdrawals come just months after the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), which intends to buy the plant containing 12 small modular reactors from NuScale Power, announced that completion of the project would be delayed by 3 years to 2030. It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion.

    This one showing that way more jobs would come by building out renewable capacity https://rael.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WeiPatadiaKammen_CleanEnergyJobs_EPolicy2010.pdf

    This one specifically analyzing SMR's which are all the hype these days: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/small-modular-reactors-arent-the-energy-answer-for-remote-communities-and-mines/

    SMRs have been proposed as a way to deal with many problems associated with large nuclear power plants, in particular the high costs of construction, running to tens of billions of dollars. SMR designs have much in common with large nuclear reactors, including, most basically, their reliance on nuclear fission reactions to produce electricity. But they also differ from large nuclear reactors in two ways. First, they have electricity outputs of less than 300 megawatts (MW) and sometimes as low as a few MW, considerably lower than the outputs of 700 to 1500 MW typical of large nuclear reactors. Second, SMR designs use modular means of manufacturing, so that they need only be assembled, rather than fully constructed, at the plant site. While large reactors that have been constructed in recent years have also adopted modular construction, SMR designers hope to rely more substantially on these techniques.

    A standard metric used to evaluate the economics of different energy choices is called the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). We calculated that the LCOE for SMRs could be over ten times greater than the LCOE for diesel-based electricity. The cheapest options are hybrid generation systems, with wind or solar meeting a part of the electricity demand and diesel contributing the rest.

    Re collapse scenario, I urge you to check out: https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/

    It is not as far fetched as you assume.

    [–] Flawed Approaches to Environmental Challenges thoughtelemental 1 points ago in Economics

    Hello all, the above is a presentation by Professor Stephen Keen of UCL, presented to a special OECD conference on "Averting Systemic Collapse"

    In the presentation, Keen critiques the work of Nordhaus and the assumptions made by economists in the IPCC reports.

    I'm curious what other economists make of his arguments.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 1 points ago in worldnews

    I encourage you to take a look at this emergency conference held by the OECD - Averting Systemic Collapse. About 1/2 of the speakers predicted western society will collapse in the coming decades:

    https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/

    I dont think it's an outlier, but thanks for the explanation!

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 1 points ago in worldnews

    There are better sources outlaying that scenario, but this isn't really isn't main point. Imo, it's a factor to consider, though the amount of time to build out nuclear plans and the fact that they cost ridiculous sums of money and always are delayed and overbudget are more important points that need to be addressed by pro-nuke individuals.

    If one can show that they are better than other solutions, then by all means we should deploy them.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 15 points ago in worldnews

    Good question!

    The correct baseline / reference is actually ZERO nukes.

    If you read the underlying paper: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-021-0447-x.pdf

    The amount of energy / heat absorbed that is reported is the excess heat as a result of warming. From the academic, peer-reviewed study:

    Over 90% of this excess heat is absorbed by the oceans, leading to an increase of ocean heat content (OHC) and sea level rise, mainly through thermal expansion and melting of ice over land. These processes provide a useful means to quantify climate change.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 2 points ago in worldnews

    There are varying degrees of societal collapse.

    The maintenance of nuclear powerplants requires an advanced technological society with large industrial manufacturing capabilities.

    Nuclear power plants that aren't not properly maintained become effective bombs that can decimate entire continents.

    Even if our industrial society based on global trade collapses, one would think we'd like to keep most of the land radiation free.... See for example: https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-and-the-collapse-of-society for more on this.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 2 points ago in worldnews

    Good question!

    The correct baseline / reference is actually ZERO nukes.

    If you read the underlying paper: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-021-0447-x.pdf

    The amount of energy / heat absorbed that is reported is the excess heat as a result of warming. From the academic, peer-reviewed study:

    Over 90% of this excess heat is absorbed by the oceans, leading to an increase of ocean heat content (OHC) and sea level rise, mainly through thermal expansion and melting of ice over land. These processes provide a useful means to quantify climate change.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 hours ago) in worldnews

    While nuclear should be explored, it's just one item in the toolset of potential technologies to deploy.

    Among issues with nuclear that need to be addressed and evaluated vs other competing technologies:

    • Most nuclear deployments take decades to build. We don't have the time.
    • Most nuclear deployments end up waaaaaay over budget, are there other economically more sound solutions?
    • No long term solution has been developed for storing nuclear waste - what is the strategy for this in the long term?
    • If society collapses, these nuclear sites become massive liabilities, what are the plans for that scenario?

    These are just a few considerations. But for sure, nuclear should be in the running.

    [–] Methane Emissions from Oil+Gas in 2020 more than EU Energy-Related CO2 Emissions thoughtelemental 4 points ago in collapse

    SS: The emission of methane (CH4), a more potent GHG has been increasing over the past decade. Especially as novel technologies for detecting methane release are being developed and deployed. A new IEA program to track methane release shows that emissions from the oil+gas industries alone are more than what all of the EU emitted CO2 in terms of energy-related emission for all of 2020.

    • We estimate that oil and gas operations worldwide emitted just over 70 million tonnes of methane into the atmosphere in 2020. Converted into equivalent amounts of CO2, assuming that one tonne of methane is equivalent to 30 tonnes of CO2, these methane emissions are comparable to the total energy-related CO2 emissions of the European Union.

    • This methane emissions figure for 2020 is around 10% lower than our estimate for 2019. A large portion of this drop occurred because of the fall in oil and gas production over the course of the year – especially in countries and regions where production has a high emissions intensity, notably Libya and Venezuela. Lower shale activity in the United States also played a role in bringing down these emissions, as did efforts to develop new gas infrastructure and the introduction of new methane regulations in a number of countries.

    [–] World's oceans absorbed the heat of 10 nukes every second in 2020 thoughtelemental 27 points ago * (lasted edited 2 hours ago) in worldnews

    As countries around the world continuously miss the meagre climate targets set out in the Paris Accords, the world continues to warm at an accelerating rate. Due to the fact of "thermal inertia" or "climate lag" ( https://skepticalscience.com/climate-inertia.html ), even if we were to stopping emitting excess greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, NH2) into the atmosphere, the earth will continue to warm for another 30-40 years (the most recent studies ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x ) suggests we've locked in +2.3C and we need to get to net-zero emissions ASAP).

    This should be the number one issue in every city and country across the world. The survival of most life on earth depends on it.

    The world's oceans absorbed 20 sextillion joules of heat due to climate change in 2020 and warmed to record levels, a study has found.

    Key points:

    • Last year the world's oceans absorbed 20 zettajoules of heat
    • Higher ocean temperatures can lead to an increase in extreme weather
    • Seas are warming at twice the global average in Australia's south-east

    Question has come up a few times in the comments, posting answer here.

    "What's the baseline level of nukes absorbed by the oceans?"

    The correct baseline / reference is actually ZERO nukes.

    If you read the underlying paper: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-021-0447-x.pdf

    The amount of energy / heat absorbed that is reported is the excess heat as a result of warming. From the academic, peer-reviewed study:

    Over 90% of this excess heat is absorbed by the oceans, leading to an increase of ocean heat content (OHC) and sea level rise, mainly through thermal expansion and melting of ice over land. These processes provide a useful means to quantify climate change.

    *edit: added links for thermal inertia and locked in warming. *edit2: added section on "baseline nuke absorption"

    [–] Derrick Jensen interviews Chris Hedges (Jan 2021) thoughtelemental 1 points ago in collapse

    Thanks for the book recommend, i'll check it out.

    And yea, Biden is a joke. This recent Chomsky interview agrees with most of what you wrote https://youtu.be/Huy82PVaCzs

    [–] Derrick Jensen interviews Chris Hedges (Jan 2021) thoughtelemental 3 points ago in collapse

    I think the US system just doesn't offer real alternatives. The media ecosystem has the illusion of choice and each cycle, the two sides are so polarized, that they each think the other will mean the end of the world, so they better supporrt their side.

    [–] Averting Systemic Collapse - New Approaches for Economic Challenges (OECD Symposium) thoughtelemental 1 points ago in collapse

    To their credit - the leadership that put together this conference brought together a good range of people. Ultimately, they were lamenting that the OECD org as a whole has little to no influence, and they were trying to brainstorm how to get the actual power wielders to listen.

    But yea, Canada nominated its former Finance Minister (who resigned in disgrace) to head the OECD. He is utterly incompetent and believes we can "innovate our way out of climate" and that we shouldn't worry about the "tail end of probability".

    But ultimately, that phrasing is more so intended to denote the countries that comprise the OECD as opposed to the organization that was hosting the event.

    [–] Averting Systemic Collapse - New Approaches for Economic Challenges (OECD Symposium) thoughtelemental 10 points ago * (lasted edited a day ago) in collapse

    SS: In 2019 OECD ran a multiday symposium, bringing in a variety of researchers, academics, business people and others to discuss whether the OECD can avert systemic collapse.

    I've watched every presentation from this conference, and the quality of the research is excellent.

    The tl;dr of the entire symposium-- about 50% of the presenters said collapse was inevitable. The chair of the OECD however nonetheless maintained that we would somehow avert collapse.

    The highlight of that conference was the compelling presentation by Jean Marc Jancovici. https://youtu.be/oy-94IgDz3w

    Another highlight - brainstorming how to reach politicians / decision-makers to take climate and biosphere collapse seriously. One idea "target their children." And no, it's not what you think, it's moreso, talk with their children, make them aware so they hold their parents accountable.

    Highly recommend watching the entire symposium if you have a chance.

    [–] Are there any good YouTube channels related to societal collapse? thoughtelemental 2 points ago in collapse

    Dunno if you can understand French, but Jean Marc Jancovici, a French IPPC negotiator has been laying out the physics of why collapse is largely inevitable modulo drastic production / consumption changes in our society. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ/videos

    The Google autotranslate is usually actually pretty decent even if you don't undrestand French.

    Beyond that, the OECD had a 3 day symposium on "Avoiding Systemic Collapse". The videos of that session are free to watch, and it should be a must watch for anyone interested in climate, degrowth and societal collapse.

    TL;DR, about 50% of the academics and researchers they brought in said collapse was inevitable.

    [–] Derrick Jensen interviews Chris Hedges (Jan 2021) thoughtelemental 15 points ago in collapse

    SS: This is an interview between Derrick Jensen, author of Deep Green Resistance, and Chris Hedges. Derrick Jensen has written extensively on how industrial civilization is doomed to collapse. Chris Hedges is a former NYT columnist and general thinker.

    This is a wide ranging discussion touching on how the US is nearing disintegration due to the fact that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually represent the broad population.

    Obviously the interview goes into far greater detail than this brief synopsis that everyone already sort of knows.