sparkyshocks

@sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨take their money and arrest those responsible⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Exactly. Cutting out all net resource consumption is really difficult, but almost all of the difficulty tends to come in the second half. The first half is worth doing.

  Somewhat counterintuitively, switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle (and driving the same number of miles) represents a greater reduction in fuel consumption compared to switching from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. Side note, this is also why we probably should’ve always been talking about fuel consumption per unit distance rather than distance per unit fuel, but it’s hard to change the conventions around this.

  So there are a ton of examples of products that use far more or less energy than alternatives, or simple changes in time of day that can make a huge difference in fossil fuel demand.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not a single one⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, the specific accounting rules make the line between “profit” and “loss” fuzzy at times, but however you slice it, nuclear power costs a lot of resources for the amount of electricity that it produces. The money represents an opportunity cost of engineering effort and concrete and steel and equipment manufacturing and mining that could have been steered towards other types of projects.

  I’m agnostic towards the technology itself, but the economics of nuclear power just don’t make sense in the current environment, where we know that any new plants will get undercut by technologies that are already on the market today (solar+wind+batteries), technologies right around the corner (advanced geothermal), and even technologies that might be commercialized (fusion) within the 50-80 year lifespan of any new fission plant. That’s the competition, and I don’t think new nuclear plants are gonna be able to compete with those other technologies on cost.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not a single one⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh

  Can we assume that, after factoring in the actual portion that the accounting says goes to the power plant itself? The economics of utility scale electricity includes both generation and transmission, so you can’t just take that retail price and assume it all goes to the power plant that produced the electricity.

  Wholesale prices tend to stay below 10 cents in most parts of the country, although it sometimes spikes when grids are under strain. I think that’s probably a more fair assumption of how much the power plants themselves are paid for their production.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not a single one⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Public services (or even non-profit private organizations) still need to manage their resources efficiently. If the output of the service (number of meals fed to people, kilowatt hours produced, houses built, lives saved, passenger kilometers transported) is much smaller on a per dollar basis than comparable services, without good reason, then that organization is mismanaging resources.

  Plenty of public services can and do break even, or bring in more than they cost.

  Money is, in many ways, fake. But its accounting represents something real, in the real resources involved: land, human labor, physical materials like concrete and steel and copper that need to be turned into very complex equipment that require highly trained workers to operate and maintain.

  So when a project doesn’t break even, it’s worth asking whether the project is still worthwhile, whether the external benefits outweigh the localized costs. I don’t think modern nuclear passes that test (even if I believe that already-constructed nuclear should be extended as long as possible and operated at as close to full capacity as possible, because those up-front costs are already sunk).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Urine Luck⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s true of the metabolic pathways for fat, protein, and alcohol, too. Each oxygen molecule we breathe feeds into chemical reactions so that it picks up a carbon atom and becomes CO2 on the way out. The carbon comes from whatever food was metabolized, including anaerobic respiration where the lactic acid eventually gets cleared out.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Don't tempt me with a good time.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve read about people in the South Pole station in Antarctica who experience 300°F temperature swings by setting their saunas heated to 200°F (93°C), sitting in there for 10 minutes, then walking naked (except boots) outside around the ceremonial South Pole marker, on days where it’s below -100°F (-73°C).

  It sounds crazy, especially in that the people who talk about it explain that they do get minor frostbite and lung damage from the experience.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Extreme Heat: Improving governance and strengthening action around the world - cancelled due to Extreme Heat⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes. But as that gets rolled out and implemented, assume that the richer organizations would be able to get those ACs installed faster and earlier.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ada Lovelace⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Isn’t that also true of the word “mathematics” as well?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I take your point, but I also think that all the other stuff can improve, too. Fertilizer use peaked in the US in 2013, and better land use practices are trying to use less water and less fertilizer and allow less erosion.

  None of this is by any means guaranteed to get better, but it’s also not inevitable that it will get worse. The work needs to be done.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Your thesis doesn’t match up with this chart:

  ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

  We’re working to decarbonize the highest categories on that list, with rapid adoption of solar/wind, some potential for more nuclear and geothermal in the medium term, and maybe even fusion in the long term.

  Then, while decarbonizing electricity, we’re electrifying heating for homes, water, cooking, and we’re electrifying transportation.

  US carbon emissions per capita peaked in the 70’s, and peaked as a whole in the 2000’s. US carbon emissions per capita still greatly exceed those of other rich nations.

  It’s very much possible to have modern first world living standards, even with significant reductions in our resource use and net emissions. We just need to line up the incentives (aka pricing) with what is good for the Earth. And we’re already doing that in many of the heaviest polluting sectors.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We are producing enough food (and clothes, and appliances, etc., etc.) for 10 billion people, and the planet is burning. It is not sustainable long term.

  That’s not necessarily true. How much of our overall greenhouse emissions come from which sector?

  From this chart, decarbonizing electricity and transport will go a long, long way, and decarbonizing manufacturing and construction could also give some room to reduce overall emissions by more than the entire agricultural sector produces.

  And it’s not just some kind of pipe dream. We’re doing real work at decarbonizing electricity, heat, transport, shipping, construction, etc., as the prices of low or zero emissions options start to outcompete the higher emission options for many applications.

  Plus if the data center boom crashes as a bubble, a lot of the infrastructure investment into increasing energy production and distribution with both high carbon and low carbon sources will at least have financed a lot of low carbon energy and the potential for curtailing the least carbon efficient generation methods.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Me too, outlet......me too.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  GFCI doesn’t protect against arcs, so AFCI would be necessary to protect against arcing causing fires.

  The danger with outdoor outlets is short circuiting (like when water drips onto a live wire), so GFCI is almost always required of outdoor outlets. Generally, outdoor outlets also require covers that keep the receptacle dry, at least when not in use (and more modern code generally requires it have an “in-use” cover that can stay on even when something is plugged in).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Durian supremacy⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is actually one of the principles that is causing building codes to start accommodating load bearing timber in tall buildings. Even though wood is combustible, wood beams that are thick enough can withstand fire for long periods of time. They’re still working out what the different tests and standards should be, but some jurisdictions have approved timber skyscrapers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Science is iterative⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Land mammals seem to converge into anteaters

  Hold on, let’s give it some time to see if sea mammals will, too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Evolution⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We should always look to nature, yes. A lot of aerodynamic designs seem to look a lot like the world’s fastest birds. Trees really do seem to optimize for capturing solar energy in an easily encoded blueprint.

  But also there are a few areas where we should recognize the limits of scope of the solutions nature has provided, or recognize the path dependency in how evolution might optimize for a particular pathway that no longer should continue to pose a restriction (the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example).

  We’re allowed to mix and match. Just gotta be careful and recognize just how powerful billions of years of evolution is, as an optimization method.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  They are clearly mathematical.

  Sure. But they’re also philosophical. The categories aren’t mutually exclusive. Basic set theory (which is both mathematics and philosophy).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I see philosophy as a place to make nonrigorous arguments.

  Wait do you think Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel weren’t making philosophical arguments?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Exactly.

  HERE’S A THEOREM: IF IT’S PROVEN, IT’S TRUE EVERYWHERE, FOREVER

  But at the same time, even if it’s true everywhere forever, it might still not be provable, because Gödel.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨School of hard knocks⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Also, I’d push back against the subtext that work experience gives skills. Plenty of people work a job for 10 years without having the adjacent job skills to be able to progress in that career or jump to another.

  Critical thinking skills are the most important thing, and it’s possible to get a 4-year degree without actually picking them up or strengthening your skill sets in that area. But it’s also possible to work for 5 years without developing critical thinking skills, either.

  In the end, no matter what you do with your time, only a small percentage of your effort is going into improving yourself. The people at work are trying to get stuff done for their employer, and the people at school are trying to get through the curriculum. It’s possible to do the work while the employer/school or even yourself cheats you out of the real long term benefits of actually learning during that time frame.