Deep Divers, Tin Hatters, Skeptics, Ped Pillers, Truthers, Unite!

[gibson]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

[princeofcarthage]

Going for nuclear probably means donating quite a bit of land to the sea :)

Not really why would you think that?

[RefluxSemantic]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - I am sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

[princeofcarthage]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear already is the most efficient form of energy at 90-95%, it is just lack of investment and interest and disagreements over how to proceed plus the fear of reactors covertly used for making weapons which has hampered the widespread use. Once we crack the code for fusion reactors it will be magnitudes better than the current fission reactors. Investment in solar and wind, particularly solar which is profitable cuz it can be directly sold to general public has led to investments and subsidies which are far far higher than nuclear.

[princeofcarthage]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - make me sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

Borrow more money from money god called printing machine or better yet, go to producers account and simply add as many zeroes he wants.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yes, and then go for offshore wind energy which means we wont have to risk a meltdown or deal with nuclear waste. Even with that bullshit argument you're still wrong.

[scarm]

Can one of the people that are good with macroeconomics that we have here on the forums pleeeeease tell carthage that printing money isn't the wondrous solution to all of humanities' problems?

[RefluxSemantic]

Fusion energy is even more awesome if its economically viable. Its like solar energy but even less complicated.

It'll also be too late for it to stop the climate going to shit.

[RefluxSemantic]

Fusion energy is even more awesome if its economically viable. Its like solar energy but even less complicated.

It'll also be too late for it to stop the climate going to shit.

For those interested look into tipping points and climate sensitivity. If we start activating certain tipping point we seriously risk starting a huge chain reaction. There is a significant chance that the climate, through these tipping points, will react very strongly to increased emissions and as a result change earth as we know it.

[Dolan]

Tbh you should reforest because the country would look boring without forests.
And you should add a few mountains too, while you're at it.

Ever been? https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/eu ... 23136.html

No. The article sounds like touristic attractions promotion in disguise, tbh.
Spread rumours about a place where portals open to the great beyond, then watch the lunatics come in droves, trying to get a foot in the door.

Keep counting the cash.

[princeofcarthage]

Can one of the people that are good with macroeconomics that we have here on the forums pleeeeease tell carthage that printing money isn't the wondrous solution to all of humanities' problems?

But we literally have been doing that since we got of barter system. The current system is restrictive and old and rules are in place just to keep rich countries rich. China literally printed money and manipulated currency which is why it did what it did in 30 years. It needs to be state sponsored and controlled and needs to be done correctly.

[princeofcarthage]

Yes, and then go for offshore wind energy which means we wont have to risk a meltdown or deal with nuclear waste. Even with that bullshit argument you're still wrong.

And again, we don't have that much space. What is the point if it needs to be dismantled in 50 years and we convert to nuclear energy anyways.

[princeofcarthage]

Fusion energy is even more awesome if its economically viable. Its like solar energy but even less complicated.

It'll also be too late for it to stop the climate going to shit.

For those interested look into tipping points and climate sensitivity. If we start activating certain tipping point we seriously risk starting a huge chain reaction. There is a significant chance that the climate, through these tipping points, will react very strongly to increased emissions and as a result change earth as we know it.

Not necessarily a bad change. Also at some point we can most likely reverse the effects though not for few decades or centuries. China has already started taking steps towards climate control and manipulation.

[gibson]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - I am sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

Can I get some sources? Nuclear fusion is ofc going to be very expensive initially but very cheap down the road. I don't get why money would be a limiting factor when it's going to pay off relatively quickly.

[RefluxSemantic]

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - I am sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

Can I get some sources? Nuclear fusion is ofc going to be very expensive initially but very cheap down the road. I don't get why money would be a limiting factor when it's going to pay off relatively quickly.

The entire discussion was about fissure energy and you never specified fusion energy so I assumed you were talking about the same thing as the rest.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yes, and then go for offshore wind energy which means we wont have to risk a meltdown or deal with nuclear waste. Even with that bullshit argument you're still wrong.

And again, we don't have that much space. What is the point if it needs to be dismantled in 50 years and we convert to nuclear energy anyways.

Do you understand what offshore means? It means on the sea where we have plenty of space.

[princeofcarthage]

Yes, and then go for offshore wind energy which means we wont have to risk a meltdown or deal with nuclear waste. Even with that bullshit argument you're still wrong.

And again, we don't have that much space. What is the point if it needs to be dismantled in 50 years and we convert to nuclear energy anyways.

Do you understand what offshore means? It means on the sea where we have plenty of space.

I thought I only read wind but yeah there are unknown risks associated with offshore which we may not be aware of yet. For ex. If enough are installed then displaced water may be enough to further submerge NL. How it will affect wave patterns, whether it will change them, whether they will be redundant in fe years. Without knowing all variables if we just go in like we did during industrialisation then we might have another disaster on hand. With nuclear all risks are known and can be alleviated.

[gibson]

Show hidden quotes

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - I am sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

Can I get some sources? Nuclear fusion is ofc going to be very expensive initially but very cheap down the road. I don't get why money would be a limiting factor when it's going to pay off relatively quickly.

The entire discussion was about fissure energy and you never specified fusion energy so I assumed you were talking about the same thing as the rest.

Okay, I'm onboard with the anti fission, but when we get fusion figured out in the next 50-100 years its gonna be a no brainer as a primary energy source I think

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

Nuclear is obviously good, but we're still a ways off from it being viable as a primary power source

Nuclear energy is nice, and it is in principle a viable primary power source (look at France). 10-20 years ago I would be 100% pro nuclear.

The problem is that global warming in essence poses an economical challenge. The question isnt whether we can stop carbon emissions, the challenge is to stop carbon emissions while not completely ransacking our economy. In the economical models I know of and studied, reducing carbon emissions costs money and slows economical growth and that ultimately is the challenge.

Spending 2-4 times as much money on nuclear energy, which takes very long to construct, is economically inefficient. Its also dangerous because we have reached the point where we need to act quickly. For the Netherlands, we cant even reach the 2030 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy anymore. I have sincere doubts that we can afford the investments required to reach the 2050 paris agreement goals with nuclear energy. Id have to study this more in depth, but at 2-4 times the cost and the insane time it takes to construct these facilities - which means that financially we only have 20 years left rather than 30 in a crisis that is economical of nature - I am sceptical that it is even feasable.

You could ofc claim that we shouldnt try to reach the paris agreement goals but that'd mean you're retarded.

Can I get some sources? Nuclear fusion is ofc going to be very expensive initially but very cheap down the road. I don't get why money would be a limiting factor when it's going to pay off relatively quickly.

The entire discussion was about fissure energy and you never specified fusion energy so I assumed you were talking about the same thing as the rest.

Okay, I'm onboard with the anti fission, but when we get fusion figured out in the next 50-100 years its gonna be a no brainer as a primary energy source I think

Nuclear fusion is a cool next step but if we don't figure it out in 10 years and get that stuff going in another 10 years then it's just not a solution to global warming.

[RefluxSemantic]

Kinda unsure which take is more retarded. That we can just infinitely print money without consequence, that global warming is not actually a problem or that offshore wind farms will meaningfully raise the sea level. Im leaning towards the latter but it really is a hard call.

[princeofcarthage]

We have been literally infinitely printing money though. global warming is not a problem???? When did I say it wasn't???? I simply said its effects could be reversed. It was a theory but apparently detailed search shows its not possible as I had a bit of misunderstanding regarding the off shore farms and actually confused with wave farm which is significantly larger.

[princeofcarthage]

During Covid literally and I literally mean literally, US, ECB, Japan, Turkey, Indonesia have literally printed money. India so far seems one of the major countries to not do which kinda seems stupid.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Wowzers! got five and a half minutes!

[RefluxSemantic]

We have been literally infinitely printing money though. global warming is not a problem???? When did I say it wasn't???? I simply said its effects could be reversed. It was a theory but apparently detailed search shows its not possible as I had a bit of misunderstanding regarding the off shore farms and actually confused with wave farm which is significantly larger.

Pretty sure consensus is that a good chunk of the effects of global warming cant be reversed in the forseeable future. And some of those effects are quite horrible.

The crisis is also quite immediate. Most models for example agree that there is no way to stop the arctic sea ice from disappearing, so in other words the polar bear is done for. But things like amazon forest dieback and the greenland and west antarctic ice sheet disappearing are also rather immediate dangers.

When I did a course on the climate and economy, there was a part where we tried to find a way to price carbon (ie quantify the cost of carbon emissions) and it was quite shocking just how many possible negative consequences there are that will both accelerate global warming and also just be bad in general. Its scary stuff and the worst case scenarios are horrifying and way too plausible.

[RefluxSemantic]

This image shocked me. The global warming averages arent so bad, most of these models average at 2-3 K global warming for this amount of carbon emissions, and thats kinda what we're aiming for with the paris agreement. But there is a huge uncertainty here; there is a chance certain processes will be set in motion (ie the amazon rainforest disappearing) that will make things much worse. And these chances are uncomfortably large. Estimating from the graphs it seems that all models predict more than 10% chance of a climate sensitivity of more than 5-6 K. At that point many places in the world, including for example India, become pretty inhospitable (and ofc the sea level will rise a lot and other shitty things happen). Its a risk that we shouldnt take, and I personally think the paris agreement is not good enough. But arguing against the paris agreement's goals is just pretty much retarded imo.