ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 7 of 7
« First < 34567
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>What will it take to be a Zero Carbon Country
displacedinMN 02:59 PM 04-30-2021
I read this as "Impossible"

Dont know what the politics is behind all of this-but it looks impossible to do without destroying the US farmland and killing the food supply in the process.

Hope you can read the article. There is also a twitter thread. All too long to copy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...alflow-organic

https://twitter.com/i/events/1388170793322909699
[Reply]
ScareCrowe 01:05 PM 05-03-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Do you believe the concern about harm to the environment is justified? I have not read anything about it specifically.

I wonder if this is really any different than past regulations which were necessary, but painful to go through.

Smog equipment on automobiles in California comes to mind.
Honestly some of it was probably a good idea, prior to the regulations people were just venting all the freon into the atmosphere in most cases. Requiring people to remove it into a tank & dispose of it properly makes sense. The freon itself is actually heavier than air so it will never make it off the ground, but I'm assuming it breaks down & individual components which are harmful to the ozone layer make there way up there.

What seems excessive to me is the constantly shifting freons, when they replaced R-22 they should have gone all the way, instead of switching to something else which was only marginally better supposedly. And from what I've heard what they are talking about switching to is basically just propane, which was available when they made people switch to something less environmentally friendly.

https://www.contractingbusiness.com/...kes-a-comeback

So we are going on our 4th refrigerant now & the one we're possibly going to decide is the best was available the entire time. I understand why the hesitation to go there as obviously having a flammable refrigerant doesn't really seem like a great idea to me. But if that's where we are going to end up we wasted a ton of money to get there
[Reply]
Ninerfan11 01:10 PM 05-03-2021
Originally Posted by Bob Dole:
Everyone will need to sit at home and eat government cheese, or move to population centers where everything can be reached on foot. Sounds like utopia!

[Reply]
ScareCrowe 01:18 PM 05-03-2021
Originally Posted by Bob Dole:
R-12 was eliminated because the patent expired.
Nope also victim of the Montreal Protocol.

Originally Posted by :
R-12 is a colorless and odorless CFC refrigerant that was completely banned from production by 1996 under the Montreal Protocol for depleting the ozone.

[Reply]
Ninerfan11 02:41 PM 05-03-2021
Lmao depleting the ozone
[Reply]
Baby Lee 02:13 AM 05-06-2021
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
That an outsized portion of that cost is from regulation, not the tech.

Kind of like if you argued that mass transit costs less than personal transportation, but then find out that's because the law requires you to disassemble your automobile's engine after every trip and bring in doctorate-level experts to inspect it before you can reassemble and use again.

Not to say the regulation is completely unmerited, but it is a bit an artificial inflator of cost basis.

That cost isn't some exotic materials and super rare fuels or anything like that, it's an army of inspectors generating a shit ton of paperwork that generates much of that cost.
An overview

https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney...e-nuclear-flop

Key point, due to bad science on the etiology of cancer led to a protocol labeled ALARA [as low as reasonably allowable]

This eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, anything that reduces costs simply allows—indeed, requires—the regulator to push for more strict requirements.

— Jason Crawford (@jasoncrawford) April 16, 2021



Bottom line is that nuclear is exponentially safer than our regulatory paradigm can possibly concede. Which is fine for now, as we are wealthy enough to demand [relatively] boutique, expensive, inefficient means of energy production. But we're not only artificially inflating the cost of production for ourselves [and our poor], but we are leaving open a strategic advantage for developing nations who can whoosh right past us by investing in cheap nuclear, providing both their citizens and their industry capacity and quality of life far beyond ours for cheaper.
[Reply]
Page 7 of 7
« First < 34567
Up