Message from @OCMan101

Discord ID: 524011782293946369


2018-12-16 23:39:19 UTC  

Does fuck all

2018-12-16 23:39:27 UTC  

China basically has free reign

2018-12-16 23:39:31 UTC  

And so does India

2018-12-16 23:40:40 UTC  

@atheist4thecause you said that USA is leading in killing CO2 emissions. Did you meant that by actual numbers per kg or by %?

2018-12-16 23:40:58 UTC  

athiest4thecause an 8C rise in temperatures would end humanity

2018-12-16 23:41:18 UTC  

at least as we know it

2018-12-16 23:41:24 UTC  

A 4C rise in temperatures would end humanity as we know it mate

2018-12-16 23:41:35 UTC  

a 1C rise in temperatrue would be a mild invonvenience

2018-12-16 23:41:45 UTC  

And global warming could end up anywhere in that rnage

2018-12-16 23:41:51 UTC  

We just don't know where

2018-12-16 23:41:58 UTC  

But we know it will be somewhere in that range

2018-12-16 23:42:04 UTC  

1C wouldn't be a "mild" inconvience, it would fuck with alot of climates

2018-12-16 23:42:05 UTC  

4C rise in summer would kill my air conditioner

2018-12-16 23:42:08 UTC  

It might not be the end

2018-12-16 23:42:14 UTC  

But I wouldn't say mild

2018-12-16 23:48:13 UTC  

@The Lemon On nuclear, we don't have to wait for the market to switch to it. Firstly, it's already extremely economical. The only reason we don't have more is due to government regulation. Secondly, as the globe warms, we will be able to tell. And if we tell it's warming more than expected or we're all going to die if we don't stop CO2 pollution ASAP, we could easily just switch over later. There really is no rush. We have time. We don't want to put fission power plants all over if we don't need to, right? And I'm aware of thorium and I'm not a huge fan of it. It doesn't really move the needle in terms of new technology or any sort of energy paradigm shift even though it has some advantages.

And no, the CO2 to fuel conversion is not useless. You take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into fuel, which you then burn and put back in the atmosphere, which means you are close to carbon neutral because you just keep taking it out so it doesn't build up. The planet will naturally decrease the CO2 through it's systems like plant life breathing.

And yeah, people have been saying nuclear is close for a long time, but that shows how long we've been working on it, and now it really is close. They now have developed the magnet that can contain the fusion core, which was a big problem because fusion is too hot to be contained by matter. And we already have fusion cores, they just don't produce a net positive gain yet. So we have the parts, we just need to put them together and increase efficiency. Pretty dang close.

2018-12-16 23:50:41 UTC  

@McBacoon the CO2 emission reductions are in millions of tons

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/513098339961798676/524010511516565504/carbon_emission_drops.png

2018-12-16 23:51:45 UTC  

The ironic thing is that because solar isn't environmentally feasible in many areas (cited this earlier), places like China are increasing their solar footprint by committing to solar where it isn't feasible.

2018-12-16 23:55:17 UTC  

nice

2018-12-16 23:55:40 UTC  

I totally aggree with nuclear

2018-12-16 23:55:44 UTC  

*agree

2018-12-16 23:56:00 UTC  

Same

2018-12-16 23:56:05 UTC  

who doesent?

2018-12-16 23:56:08 UTC  

I already tried to make that really clear

2018-12-16 23:56:12 UTC  

Nuclear is just an awesome idea

2018-12-16 23:56:17 UTC  

Also yeah china needs to get their shit together

2018-12-16 23:56:24 UTC  

lmao *Chernobyl*

2018-12-16 23:56:27 UTC  

*what a great idea*

2018-12-16 23:56:30 UTC  

<:nice:400522235351400458>

2018-12-16 23:57:00 UTC  

Actually, even when you include Chernobyl, Nuclear Power Plants are some of the safest Power Plants

2018-12-16 23:57:00 UTC  

You heard of thorium?

2018-12-16 23:57:07 UTC  

@The Lemon in a distant future, China wont get their shit together

2018-12-16 23:57:14 UTC  

No honestly you heard of thorium power

2018-12-16 23:57:15 UTC  

Chernobyl was human error, and nuclear power plants are still less dangerous than coal

2018-12-16 23:57:17 UTC  

Look it up

2018-12-16 23:57:32 UTC  

@OCMan101 Like I mentioned. Nuclear is ironically safe

2018-12-16 23:57:36 UTC  

ye

2018-12-16 23:57:45 UTC  

Chernobyl was a freak once in a lifetime incident

2018-12-16 23:57:57 UTC  

It would basically solve the entire energy crisis but in the past nobody invested in it cos you cant make nukes out of it

2018-12-16 23:58:04 UTC  

Nuclear kills so many less people than fossil fuels

2018-12-16 23:58:08 UTC  

The safety record of nuclear plants is the same as airplanes. They are the safest ways. But when something happens, then the damage and outcry is big.