[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: -098.png (169 KB, 1024x881)
169 KB
169 KB PNG
>solar and wind power will never be competiti-ACK!
>>
there are still many otherwise intelligent people who still believe the "nuclear power is so cheap they'll hardly bother charging for it" bollocks
>>
>capacity
Lmao.
But good news nonetheless.
>>
>>101360362
This shows that nuclear power is criminally under funded. Greater investment in nuclear would bring the price right down but countries sitting idle on nuclear development or removing it for no reason have caused its cost to increase instead.
>>
just do nuclear as a baseline and wind where it makes sense. solar may make sense in some areas (like the southwest), but the embodied carbon is pretty high for deployment in most areas
>>
>>101360362
Fake news
Cost of installing + maintaining + storing solar power is the same since like 1985
>>
Not defending any side, but I think it's funny how many people will interpret this graph wrongly as cost X time instead of cost X capacity
>>
File: 1707509100172737.jpg (187 KB, 1280x960)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
wind power should be banned, it kills too many birds and especially slow breeding ones like eagles
>>
>>101360759
>eagles have the best eyesight
>fly into spinning blades
Natural selection.
>>
>>101360759
>OH NO MY HECKING BIRDS!!!!
>>
>>101360733
It is cost AND capacity over various time points. Do you seriously think that building more nuclear casually makes it more expensive?
The graph is showing that
>renewables have decreased in price and have exponentially been installed more
>more nuclear power plants got built but they've also become more expensive
>coal's price the same and it's being used more. it might not look like much but note that the X axis is logarithmic
>>
>>101360977
In general we should try limit disrupting the ecosystem by causing loss of one animal or set of animals over others, mostly because we don't know what the results will be.
>>
>>101360362
>Subsidy money now being used to pay for illegal savages
>Solar and wind companies begin going out of bidness
How strange.
>>
>>101360362
Solar power is almost worthless?
>>
>>101360820
It's not because of spinning blades, wind and solar just cause a lot of pollution that they breathe, and then die
Literally every bird that has breathed in the presence of wind or sunlight has died or will die in the future
>>
>>101360610
This. To understand why any kind of power is competitive, we have to ask where is the money coming from. This is politics as much as "common sense". If solar is pushed and invested in, it can be cheaper than nuclear power. However, "cheap" isn't good enough as an argument imo.
>>101360635
Wind isn't good enough for that iirc. You need a small thermal generation for really fast load balancing.
>>
>>101360362
>Cost in USD
Yeah, money was always the crux of the matter, wasn't it?
Dumbest shill ever.
>>
>>101360410
there are still many otherwise intelligent people who still believe money is indexed on the volume of gold stored in bank's vault. So...
>>
>>101360362
Ah yes because wind and solar scale so well countries pushing billions into expanding capacity have the highest energy prices in the entire world while also needing coal to offset the disadvantages (no wind sometimes, no sun at night) and thus being among the top polluters.
>But my made up graph posted by some fat ugly dying vegan in his 20's whos also balding and a midget says wind is better! Oh my hecking science!
Neck yourself redditroon.
France has nuclear, germany has wind.
German energy grid is more polluting and energy costs two and a fucking half times as much.
Spastic troglodytes like you should get run over the next time you glue yourself to the road.
>>
>>101360362
If you understood how solar panels are made you would not say they are good for the enviroment.
Just saying

>>101360410
What when you shut down a bunch of nuclear reactors it doesn’t produce cheaper power? What?!
>>
>>101362507
this. nuclear is greenest safest and cheapest energy. and yet whole world goes full fucking retard chasing some inane ideas that happen to be trending for whatever retarded reason.
>>
>>101360362
Cool graph, now include the cost of adapting the grid and our energy usage from demand driven to supply driven.
>>
>>101360362
This is a great image which tells you the obvious but also reaffirms that your instincts are also often spot on
I didn't need this chart to tell me off shore wind was more expensive and less abundant. Similarly I also knew solar which literally produces electricity ready to ship out is bound to be way more efficient and available than nuclear which requires a shit ton of complexity

Always trust you instincts anons.
>>
>>101363302
>solar which literally produces electricity ready to ship out
Nuclear plants producing boiling water is a huge advantage over solar production though.
It's way easier to store massive amount of energy by using pressured hot water than by using electricity.
>>
>>101360362
china largely divested away from nuclear (and subsequently into solar) after fukushima.
the anglos among us will hate this, but sometimes it feels like this is china's world and we're just living in it. at least that's how my cunt's economy feels
>>101362507
the graph omits energy storage which makes it completely bogus. the animal curve aside, industry needs power (ie. uptime) 24/7 to be efficient, or even viable.
>>
>>101360362
coal thread
>>
>>101360362
I run my entire life on solar panels and batteries and inverters. It's better for my computer and TV. The sine wave is cleaner. I maintain 110vac at 110v. Not 120 or 105... I've been on solar for about 7 years now. Never once did I lose power. I love having electricity when everyone else loses power during storms. I never pay a power bill. If you're not solar maxing your life, what are you doing?
>>
>>101363302
>Similarly I also knew solar which literally produces electricity ready to ship out is bound to be way more efficient and available than nuclear which requires a shit ton of complexity
You know that you can't just run a power grid off solar and wind, right?
Do you know the difference between grid forming and grid following power source?

Your instincts aren't worth shit, this is engineering.

>>101363618
>china largely divested away from nuclear (and subsequently into solar) after fukushima.
This is not true. Why lie?
>>
File: lazard2023 firming.jpg (81 KB, 1080x674)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>101360362
Where is the firming cost factor? Electricity that only on some time and only in limited amounts is worthless even if free.
>>
>>101360362
No one is arguing that solar/wind won't compete on cost.
The issue is how you get through winter in most of the world.
Large scale battery storage works but is expensive and not that "green" either, and you'd need a fuckton to get through winter. It's probably more suited for getting through the night and the occasional span of gray days during summer.
Nuclear reactors can't be spun down and up very easily, so they can't really take care of the occasional gaps, but they could conceivably be spun up in september to cover the darker half of the year.
>>
>>101360410
The line is that it is too cheap to meter back when meter reading was an expensive task. They would just put everyone on a flat price rate based on building size or connection amperage.
>>101360635
>just do nuclear as a baseline and wind where it makes sense. solar may make sense in some areas
What that means is 100% nuclear power baseline. So why bother with the wind and solar?
>>101360733
>Not defending any side, but I think it's funny how many people will interpret this graph wrongly as cost X time instead of cost X capacity
Install 100GW of wind capacity, have a utility of 20% so you kinda only installed 22GW if you assume a 95% utility for nuclear.
>>
>>101363711
>Nuclear reactors can't be spun down and up very easily,
Depends on the reactor.
>>
>>101363711
>Nuclear reactors can't be spun down and up very easily, so they can't really take care of the occasional gaps
That's a non issue. Because whenever the reactor is down, you still have a massive amount of warm water ready as a buffer.
You only need your reactor to kick in by the time that buffer is empty.
>>
>>101363663
>You know that you can't just run a power grid off solar and wind, right?
Yes I do. Wind is unreliable and solar is present only in the day.
>Do you know the difference between grid forming and grid following power source?
I had never heard of either of those terms before I read your post, but I searched them right now. They seem to be just synonyms for grid-tie inverters and off-grid/hybrid inverters.
>Your instincts aren't worth shit, this is engineering.
I too am an engineer, although I work with 3.3V max and don't really know much about high power stuff(electronics engineer). Its all intuitive.
>>
>>101363844
>I had never heard of either of those terms before I read your post, but I searched them right now. They seem to be just synonyms for grid-tie inverters and off-grid/hybrid inverters.
Not that guy, but I am a power engineer. A very large generator at one power plant will set the frequency on the grid and every other power plant will join on then match their generators to the beat of the biggest plant. In most places it's a large coal fired plant or nuclear reactor. Sometimes is a hydro dam.
The other generators when they connect will slightly jump forward or backwards and then be locked into the grid like voices joining in pitch and becoming louder.

Solar and wind don't generate the smooth curve of voltage flipping that you get when you spin a magnetic field. Solar because it makes DC power that needs to be inverted and wind because it makes all different frequency power based on blade rotations without a way to control the wind speed. This comes out as dirt slightly square stepping voltage and is generally too small in power to lock the grid too it. Pic related in Australia trying to recover from a blackout after losing an interconnect to a large coal plant that was their grid forming station, they tried and failed to restore power at 18:00 using only wind and couldn't restart the grid.

In California they have some wind farms out in the desert that are right beside the large power interconnect transmission lines. When the wind is blowing hard the lines droop an alarming degree because of the dirty wave form the wind farms make that causes induced EMF that heats the wires. The slightly out of sync waves cost them like 10% of the power while that length of transmission should only cost like 1% or less.
>>
>>101363844
>Yes I do. Wind is unreliable and solar is present only in the day.
That's only part of the problem.
>They seem to be just synonyms for grid-tie inverters and off-grid/hybrid inverters.
The thing is, you can't just run grid off solar or wind because they need an already functioning grid to work. Smaller generators like solar and wind can only follow some larger, "complex" power generator.
>although I work with 3.3V max and don't really know much about high power stuff(electronics engineer).
And the power grid doesn't work like low voltage DC circuits, where you can just plug power sources and call it a day. The grid has thin margins for voltage and frequency changes. If they deviate too much, the generators will desync, tripping the breakers and your whole grid can collapse in a cascading manner. It's a delicate balance that must be maintained at all times.
The problem with solar and wind is that they can't correct the grid. They only follow it, including all the deviations. And it's even worse, because they lack inertia of kinetic generator, making such deviations much more rapid and decreasing the time window to react. And these deviations happen precisely when you might need them the most, when demand is very high or some other power plant has tripped offline.

Our power grid is not designed to handle such power generation. There is no, no-complexity, solution for this. Power grid is a complex system that takes complex machinery to keep it going. Out of green energy, much more useful are large hydroelectrical plants and storages.
>>
>>101360759
cats also killed so many rare bird species to extinction
I dont see you fags go around killing cats
>>
>>101364106
This is very tangential to the topic of the thread, but that "factoid" is actually completely made up by one guy who hates cats, managed to get a bogus study published, and a bunch of people who ran with it.

Actually now I wonder how accurate the idea that wind turbines kill a lot of birds is; intuitively I'd expects birds to be able to dodge the rather slow turbine.
>>
>>101364030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08mwXICY4JM&list=PLTZM4MrZKfW-ftqKGSbO-DwDiOGqNmq53

A video that gets a bit into some of the issues.
>>
>>101364106
>cats also killed so many rare bird species to extinction
>I dont see you fags go around killing cats
Cats mostly kill small song birds not raptors. And we humans value bigger birds more than small ones.
>>
>>101364123
>Actually now I wonder how accurate the idea that wind turbines kill a lot of birds is; intuitively I'd expects birds to be able to dodge the rather slow turbine.
My friend had a job driving out to the wind farm and picking up dead birds all over the sites. Not because they company gave a fuck or was in violation of current law. But because the dead birds attracted coyotes and the union electricians that worked on the turbines demanded the coyotes had to be removed from the work sites before they would get out of their trucks and do some fucking work.

See the video above for how well birds do at dodging the blades.
>>
>>101364164
this is basically the same as how india has the most train related fatality because they all keep doing tiktok near miss challenge
why did they keep flying around it?
>>
>>101360362
Yes, solar is great, free electricity in the day, but no electricity at night.
>>
>>101364151
Meanwhile even pajeets have thousands of completely automated substations and other power infrastructure without any human staff and hence they can cold start every generator, turbine and PV farm in the country and still sync everything in 5 hours
>>
>>101364308
The root problem for Texas is that their natural gas suppliers and industrial users didn't think they could ever have cool temperatures and had limited insulation and heating on their pipes which very quickly plugged with hydrides, which is basically hydrocarbon slush that forms above freezing in the right pressure conditions like you would find inside a pipe.

A few thousand dollars of heat trace at key plants would have avoided all the problems.
This year Alberta had an electrical warning when the temperature hit -50C and they asked domestic users to cut power use during peak grid demand but it turns out they were still sitting on almost 10% of capacity although a single large plant outage might have caused a real issue with the need for rolling blackouts.
>>
>>101360362
>Installed capacity
Lol. The actual generation is way lower than the actual capacity since it is not always running and often running at below max efficiency.
Then you have to add the storage cost, which makes wind and solar energy way more expensive once you no longer can just use it to replace running your peaker plants, there peaker plants are required as well and the cost of constructing these are the upkeep is not added to the cost of using wind or solar.

Thankfully people are actually starting to become more and more pro nuclear.
Leaders across the globe have been extremely irresponsible by not investing in nuclear for the last 50 years.
>>
>>101361151
I mean, the world would heal if animals such as pajeets will be gone
>>
>>101364416
>Thankfully people are actually starting to become more and more pro nuclear.
I think that's because the average person's understanding any any complex system is declining. In the 1970s most men were expected and knew how to fix a car engine. Today most zoomers are scared of cars. To them a car, a smartphone or a nuclear reactor are equally magical and they just assume it will work when needed and experts will fix, replace or operate things for them.
>>
File: file.png (43 KB, 608x281)
43 KB
43 KB PNG
>>101362442
>>101363721
Nuclear is great long term but it takes too long to bring them online. Some googling says 10-15 years. But to bring the amount we would need to supplant coal/natural gas is probably closer to 20-30 years.

In the meantime, we'd still be running on a lot of coal/natural gas. Getting solar/wind/hydro up and running where appropriate could cut those sources out faster until we get nuclear running.

Then once the nukes are up and running, sell those old solar/wind systems to places we wouldn't trust to have nuclear energy (ie Africa and South America) so they can get off fossil fuels too.
>>
>>101365527
What's important is that we keep sending money to Israel and Ukraine and everywhere else instead of ever beginning to attempt better nuclear
>>
>>101363302
Hell no, I was a fat fuck 3 month ago.
Never trust your instincts. Brain dumb data good
>>
>>101363674
What's a firming cost factor?
>>
>>101363663
>net installed
so a time lag. it's on wikipedia you nigger, go check its sources if you cared and stop making my point. china divested from nuclear but is still rich enough to keep it alive either way.
>>
>>101363975
What if we built skyscraper sized smoothing capacitors?
>>
>>101363658
How many square meters/feet do you have? And what brand of panels?
>>
>>101365669
>Building on this growth trajectory from 2014 to 2023, China has added more than 34 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power capacity. By April 2024, the number of operational nuclear reactors in China reached 55, totaling a net capacity of 53.2 GW. Despite this rapid expansion, nuclear power constituted only about 5% of China's total power generation in 2022. This percentage is significantly lower compared to the United States, where nuclear power accounts for about 18% of the electricity generation mix. Despite the continued dominance of coal as the primary energy source, the Chinese government remains committed to developing nuclear power alongside other forms of energy to meet the increasing electricity demand and address environmental concerns.[41]
???
>>
>>101360362
>conveniently omitting oil
>>
How come nuclear's $/kWh increased?
>>
>>101365669
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#China
Nearly half of their reactors started construction after Fukushima. And there is like 30 more planned.
>>
>>101365764
I love China, but they need more nuclear power
>>
>>101365799
I dislike China but I think everyone needs more nuclear power.
>>
>>101365812
That's ok, just please dont be mean to Chinese women.
>>
>>101365839
There is no Chinese women here.
>>
>>101362599
>What when you shut down a bunch of nuclear reactors it doesn’t produce cheaper power? What?!
This
>>
>>101360759
cats kill 3.4 trillion birds a year
wind turbines kill 200k birds a year

with that many orders of magnitude difference between them you must be so passionate about keeping cats inside you’d shoot them on sight, or you’re just regurgitating what your aunt reposted on facebook
>>
>>101365764
>Chinese government remains committed to developing nuclear power alongside other forms of energy to meet the increasing electricity demand and address environmental concerns
Nuclear is currently the best solution for meeting energy demands
>>
File: 1687621789407796.jpg (9 KB, 220x180)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>101360362
>Lobby government to heavily incentivize wind and solar with rebates, discounts, and write offs
>Lobby government to regulate nuclear to hell and back to the point where it's too expensive
>Wow look guys it's so much cheaper now!!!
>>
>>101364106
>>101365907
Of course I do trap all the cats on my property and kill the feral ones, thats legal in my country (finland)
>>
File: IMG_2732.png (212 KB, 471x469)
212 KB
212 KB PNG
>>101365942
green energy is substantially less subsidized than fossil fuel energy
>>
>>101365923
For the long term? Sure. But it does take quite some time and money to set up.
>>
>>101365969
Nuclear is not fossil fuel you turbo tim.
>>
>>101360362
I love the newfag NPC talking point that we should totally make everything nuclear including flying drones, if these fucks ever get to a leading position we're beyond fucked
>>
>>101360759
Better not look at any facts about that lmao. Better start banning any high rise buildings first. Cause those kill hundreds of millions of birds every year.
Meanwhile the absolute highest estimate for how many birds die to wind turbines is 679,000 in a study from 2013. Most studies find its more like 200k. I suspect you don't really care about birds...
>>
>>101366058
all big reflective surfaces on buildings do need to be banned. and like i said the wind turbines kill large birds, that breed very slowly while cats and skycrapers mostly kill small, fast breeding ones.
>>
>>101360410
>>101365776
Nuclear is cheaper than one would think; we lack the infrastructure and know how due to not building reactors for 60 years and the NRC is run by people who don't like nuclear in the first place. Vogtle/V.C Summer effectively lead to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and costed 3x the amount originally slated, took 20+ years each too. Meanwhile, S. Korea and China have been constantly developing nuclear infrastructure and have been practicing this entire time.

Hualong Two costs under 2000 per kW, which is in the same ballpark as an "installed capacity" of a solar farm of 1GWe which usually costs just over a billion and doesn't have the obvious distribution/storage, capacity factor, life cycle issues as solar and wind that prevents it from reaching its installed capacity in usage. A more realistic price is probably about 5B per 1GWe installed capacity like the Barakah nuclear power station in UAE. The LCOE is pretty similar between renewables to be honest, sort of depends on the interest rates and how fast manufacturers want to pay off the loan and get power to the market, which has been a failure in the US.

Solar and wind is nice, it has huge issues though and they are not likely to be addressed without needing to start deep sea mining for battery materials, and have even shorter life cycles than refuel cycles in nuke plants.
>>
>>101363658
>solar panels and batteries and inverters
>I never pay a power bill.

How did you get the panels and batteries and inverters for free?
>>
>>101365969
>substantially less subsidized than fossil fuel energy
Only gasoline is subsidized to trick plebs into thinking inflation isn't as bad as it is; natural gas and coal plants have to pay carbon taxes, which is the opposite of subsidized.
>>
>>101364164
muh bigger bird more better
>>
>>101364164
>webm
this is good, it filters the low IQ birds
>>
>>101364164
all it'd take is to place some kind of metal or whatever net around it so the retard birds won't crash into it
>>
>>101360362
Just burn coal, we already have the plants built anyway.
>inb4 muh global warming
Psyop, natural co2 emissions from the earth and historic preindustrial temprature and carbon estimates pretty much prove that you don't need to get so histronic about the carbon cost of your electric buttplug. The planet deals with things on an astronomical scale, all of mankind is akin to ants in comparison.
>>
>>101366915
You cannot see the light pollution from ant's nest from space.
Ants don't trigger diluvian rainfall in the fucking desert by playing god with cloud seeding.
Ants don't fill the ocean with plastic wastes, which accumulated mass might exceed the biomass of fish by 2050.
The list goes on and on.

Globhomos displaced every environmental problem to some remote shithole country; Where you cannot perceive them. But it did not make all those problem consequence-free by magic.
>>
>>101367070
How does one sneed the clouds?
>>
>>101366915
this, and trees use solar to grow
>>
>>101367070
It does not matter, if people fuck shit up too much it just means God planned it. I'm a little cog, I can't affect the rain, and people who think they can will reap what they sow. Burning coal might get the crackheads off the streets and back into the mines. Plus there'll be more trains again, choo choo.
>>
If I drive through a red light and hit a bus and die, that's God's will. I'm a simplistic, preprogrammed automaton with no way to react to my environment. I have no intelligence. That wouldn't be Christian.
>>
>>101364164
Easy solution
>radar on top that detects birds
>sentry "gun" but it has a directional antenna that shoots electromagnetic waves on the birds that come too close
>>
>>101360362
meanwhile it's even cheaper
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy
>>
If the earth warms up like half a degree or whatever, I'd totally die. That'd be so not wholesome chungus and hurt my precious niggerinos. I'm so smart because I'm basically a magic meat computer piloting a super skeleton robot and isn't that so EPIC! I hate Christofacists because they're so backwards and heckin' mean. I mean seriously, justifying slaverly by saying your magic skydaddy said so? Obviously we're all human beans on this Earth, made up of the same stardust, and we all stop existing when we die. So just be, like, nice or something. Anyways, remember to bring your dues to the athiest club meeting, my mom said I had to pay for the lamp we broke and my allowance doesn't cover it.
>>
>>101360362
>doesnt chart natural gas
lies
>>
>>101360362
55 bucks per mwh??? Jesus Christ, how much is the average Amerifat energy bill?
>>
>>101366511
there is no federal carbon tax in the US
>>
>>101360362
>dump trillions in subsidies and R&D into wind and solar
>put zero towards improving nuclear
>shocked when wind/solar becomes more cost effective (on paper)
>>
>>101368388
https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm
>>
>>101363975
synthetic inertia will fix this.
>>
>>101365692
>What if we built skyscraper sized smoothing capacitors?

Batteries in containers but basically the same idea.
>>
>>101361151
why?
>>
>>101360410
Yeah nuclear is obviously the best option for providing power. All this graph shows is that refusing to invest in it has caused costs to increase as infrastructure deteriorates.

Ultimately people need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear power otherwise there is no hope for curbing climate change at all.
>>
>>101366915
>he planet deals with things on an astronomical scale, all of mankind is akin to ants in comparison
And part of "dealing" with the increased carbon emissions means the environment becoming uninhabitable for those ants. Like sure the planet will continue to exist. Life might even continue after we trigger mass extinction, but like, we could avoid that.
>>
>>101369077
I'm telling you that you won't trigger mass extinction. Try all you want retard, you can't do it.
>>
>>101368998
it's obviously the worst option for investors, it takes decades for planning and building and in the meantime a change in government or public opinion can kill the entire project and all your money is lost, same with big hydro btw.
wind and solar and natural gas projects can be finished much faster, most important usually before the next election, you can complain about it, but if you don't find a shortcut to build your plant in less then 4 years money will go somewhere else.
>>
>>101360362
>Cost*


*includes billions in government subsidies
>>
Build nuclear, build wind, build solar, add margins, and build flywheels. Wind and solar are currently not designed to be grid forming, but they can be. Sadly, the incentives for constructing renewable plants have been purely focused on production capacity.

Wind and solar are excellent additions to reduce the fuel burn of nuclear reactors, but they need expensive, non-generating parts to stabilise their generation.
>>
They will never be as good as nuclear. I like renewables, though
>>
>>101360362
Impressive, very nice.
Now remove the government subsidies.
>>
>>101369104
>I'm telling you that you won't trigger mass extinction
Okay, I don't really care what you are telling me. That is basically wholly irrelevant. You are a random anonymous retard.

The historical record is littered with mass extinctions and virtually all of them involve the climate changing dramatically in a short period of time faster than life can adapt to. It is more than possible for human efforts to achieve this effect as well and you've said nothing of substance to refute that.
>>
>>101365969
This is literally the opposite of reality.
>>
>>101369645
He's telling you that an individual human can't cause a mass extinction, so there's no way billions of humans working together could make it happen. Just like how a human can't pick up a car, so ten humans working together can't pick up a car.
>>
>>101369583
I was trying to explain this to a boomer the other day and he looked at me like I had two heads.
>>
>>101369645
>>101369774
No, I'm telling you it doesn't matter how many billions of humans are thrown at the problem, they can't do it. It is on a categorically different level than we are capable of. The only way I could forsee us being able to completely render the planet uninhabitable is if we were so technologically advanced we could terraform mars. Men can kill lots of men, maybe even most men, but the domain of extinction of mankind is outside of our hands.
>>
>>101369852
>nuclear weapons have entered the chat
Don't get me wrong, I get what you mean anon, but never underestimate our ability to trash shit.
>>
>>101369852
>domain of extinction of mankind is outside of our hands
Okay moron. Explain how you came to this conclusion.

Just repeating "hurr durr there's no way" is unmitigated COPE.
>>
>>101369894
I don't even think nukes could do it at this point, people are like cockroaches.
>>101369947
Because the scale involved in things like the climate are so vast that it's literally astronomic. How much carbon do you think people put in the atmoshpere compared to the natural emissions from things like volcanoes? Did you ignore the part where I mentioned historic carbon and temperature trends?
Beyond that, assumptions about carbon and heating are drawn from 'models' that have tenious connection to reality at best. The system that is our climate is very complicated and has many interconnected parts that are nearly impossible to calculate. The world went through a lot of tribulation to stabilize in the condition it's in. It is not volatile, and the things that have changed it historically have been events on astronomic scale. We do not not yet understand the scope of the system that regulates all this. I don't know if we ever can, but if it's possible we're not there yet.
>>
>>101369947
Go outside and kick a rock. Does it melt? No? If it doesn't melt, humans can't cause extinctions.
>>
It's all meaningless until you include the cost of hydrogen electrolysers, hydrogen storage and hydrogen generators.
>>
>>101370466
Humans aren't capable of hydrogen electrolysis
>>
you know you've got the redditor assblasted when he has to aggressively post as strawman to cope with his cognitive dissonance being shattered.
>>
>>101370489
Humans aren't capable of assblasting
>>
File: 1690282094955994.jpg (128 KB, 850x1294)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
>>101370528
Here, take this puffer.
>>
>>101360759
birds stay away when the blades are painted instead of being plain white
>>
>>101363618
>China divested out of nuclear
Are you retarded they’ve been dumping money and now hold more nuclear energy patents than any other nation. They’ve also developed modular nuclear plants which are much smaller and designed to be immediately plugged into an existing grid.

>>101360362
>source?
>>
>>101370159
>Because the scale involved in things like the climate are so vast that it's literally astronomic
Human beings exist on "astronomic" scales right now. Billions of humans each contributing thousands of tons of carbon over their lifetime absolutely is astronomical. This is even before considering the REAL source of the bulk of carbon emissions (businesses).

>How much carbon do you think people put in the atmoshpere compared to the natural emissions from things like volcanoes?
This was a great opportunity to provide any supporting arguments, and yet you chose to ask a rhetorical question because you are playing a rhetorical game of retardation.

>Did you ignore the part where I mentioned historic carbon and temperature trends?
No, there was just nothing of substance to reply to.

>Beyond that, assumptions about carbon and heating are drawn from 'models' that have tenious connection to reality at best
Actually the greenhouse effect is an easily observable and replicable effect that has nothing to do with climate models.

>The system that is our climate is very complicated and has many interconnected parts that are nearly impossible to calculate
I agree the models are probably wrong but this only makes the situation worse because it means that we can't (accurately) predict when we are past the point of no return. It doesn't mean that point doesn't exist.

>It is not volatile
It's always interesting to see people use words they just straight up don't understand.

Oh well, sad to see that climate change deniers still have nothing but empty rhetoric. I really wanted to believe that everything would work out.

>>101370191
>Go outside and kick a rock. Does it melt? No?
It did melt, guess we're fucked.
>>
>>101362604
>the world doesn't want to, nor can it, run on the most difficult, dangerous and inflexible power supply imaginable.
truly the end of times
>>
>>101364164
>retarded bird circles giant rotating blades
>>101366058
>retarded birds flying into giant buildings

Good. They're being culled.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.