bob29

yes or buy one on ebay for a fraction of the price of some libre maker flavor of the month soon to be ewaste

YAAAS If we can accelerate income equality we can reduce consumption. We need the 99% (better yet the 99.9%) to be as poor as possible. Income is related to consumption, and consumption is related to emissions and pollution.

This is just a sign that BP is doing a good and efficient job at delivering energy to customers effectively.

Facebook Apple Google Microsoft Amazon Netflix:

amen

Doubtful, perhaps its an example of ignorance but I hope any textbook isn't using my comment as a defintion.

I don't have a pension, or a 401k if that is what you are implying. I do have social security deducted from my paycheck. Is that money getting invested into the stock market on my behalf?

Sorry I'm not in the elite income class, I'm not directly familiar with the nuances of all these financial companies, or what they do. I understand risk. I understand lending money to pursue a risky venture. I understand time-value of money. I don't understand higher-order financial engineering except as presented in pop culture references such as wolf of wallstreet which I initially referenced, or the big short. I understand many machinations of society aren't directly visible as a "product" to the "average joe" of society but their ultimate benefit to society can usually be explained in a way I can understand, such as insurance, loans, industrial manufacturing, and such. These financial companies, as well as lobbyists, seem to just be skilled at manipulating a system and converting it into money.

Probably by your value system I am irrational, I don't chase money as an ends unto itself. I'm trying to understand Jane Street.

I don't do stock market trading, but even those who do that I know of, are doing so via companies such as: Robin Hood, E-Trade, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Vanguard...

Are these "market makers" working behind the scenes to facilitate the operation of those retail facing companies? Is Black Rock buying all the real estate also good for (potential) retail investors like me? Because it's starting to feel like we're being told to cheer for those faciliting the ever-increasing wealth disparity of society.

At my job? I take food ingredients and perform some manual manipulation to arrange them into enjoyable edible form (although the natural gas powered grill and the electric element powered heating elements, via cooking oil perform the bulk of the "work" in terms of watt-hours), and contribute to the maintenence of the facility and equipment that allows that to happen. Per shift (along with 1-4 coworkers) I think I am involved in preparaing late breakfast or lunch for approximately 150-200 people, saving them perhaps dozens of minutes from preparing the equivalent meal themselves. (don't worry, I dont think you owe me too much respect).

haha suck it, internal combustion engine cars.

> under which, there is no environment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217929

Also, if you put a solar panel on a roof of a building, there will still be a building underneath the solar panel. Many people live in them, they dont get obliterated just because they are underneath a solar panel.

If you think none of the industrial, process, or scientific work is done, you are incapable of decomposing the problem into its constitutent parts and recognizing the existance of most of its constituent parts in other parts of industry.

Goodbye.

I'm not one to argue etymology. Apparently nothing is real until it's realized. So "not being real" is meaningless and we should discuss whether something is "able to be realized".

Can fuels by synthesized at industrial scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol

I'm sure the goalposts just moved LOL

There are many chemical plants synthesizing chemicals in large quantities: ammonia, ethanol, etc.

Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based, so making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.

Only in the last decade, for the first time, renewables are a cheaper form of primary energy, creating motivation for a fuel producing energy plant R&D.

BTW: instead of raging at people with your own definition of "real" and "not real" it may help to talk in terms of Technology Readiness Level as used by eg NASA. I can see why you say electricity to synthetic fuel "isn't real" but its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.

I believe you would pump in CO2 (and any missing nutrients), not Oxygen. Algae culture requires CO2 and produces Oxygen. It also requires light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Growing_algae

Pyrolysis is entirely endothermic - it requires applying heat to biomass. Pyrolysis yields a vapor that will combust in the presence of oxygen and release energy. The energy released in the combustion of pyrolysis products can be used to drive further pyrolysis. A "Top Lit Updraft Gasifier" is a simple apparatus to achieve this.

Capturing the heat from pyrolysis in this way does however convert the pyrolysis vapor from hydrocarbon into combustion byproducts, namely C02. This company claims to be condensing all of these hydrocarbons, not combusting them.

For a nice and understandable example of pure pyrolysis without combustion, there is this project [0] wherein an airtight vessel is loaded with biomass, heat/energy is applied with electrical resistive heating elements. The pyrolysis occurs and the resulting vapors are captured and stored as a low pressure vapor for later use in cooking or powering internal combustion engine.

[0]https://www.patreon.com/posts/story-of-thing-i-61916621

The comment was about all nuclear waste from a power plant. You responded with figures for quantity of spent nuclear fuel, which is volumetrically a mere fraction of the total waste from a nuclear reactor.

Low level rad waste still has cumulative health exposure risks, subject to many requirements for proper handling and disposal. there are lots of materials "not unique to nuclear plants" which do become irradiated once used in a nuclear plant.

BTW in hanford washington each year 10% of the DoE's budget goes to preventing plutonium leaking into a river, a lot of hubris to trivialize the geoengineering involved in designing a "zero risk" containment

How are you heating it? How are you powering all the chippers, blowers, conveyer belts, and other machinery? Along with the transportation of crop residue to your facility, how much carbon is re-emitted with your consumption of all these industrial products of the primarily fossil fueled powered energy system?

nice disengenous quote used out of context, used nuclear fuel is a subset of waste from a nuclear power plant.

btw, in case a football field at a depth of 10 yards sounds small: http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html#1

The IPCC did not do primary research. They cite a source. That source did not do primary research, either. The actual data comes from an estimate from the industry itself. The estimates came from costs. Estimating embodied fossil fuel energy based on cost is a not a bad estimation technique except when a huge amount of your supply chain is subsidized.

So wrong its funny. Maybe if you assume the pre-existance of the nuclear supply chain due to a weapons program. I challenge you to actually follow the sources on any of estimates like that, or the hilarious "12g c02/kwhr" quote. It's all ESTIMATES (not measurements) FROM The nuclear industry. But keep on believing.

>build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid

Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Increasing 4x nuclear plants would increase fossil fuel consumption in the nuclear supply chain.

Nuclear isn't some secret technology you've just discovered thats being suppressed by environmentalists. It literally ended the biggest war ever and was pursued for decades afterwards. Unless you know a secret, if its feasible it would have been done.

It's precisely the point for ALL primary energy sources.

everything is built with the current fossil fuel powered industry. cement, steel, uranium mining and enrichment all is subsidized by the fossil fuel doped industry. Same with wind and solar.

The fact that nuclear power costs more than fossil fuel power is really a reflection that its whole supply chain is consuming more fossil fuel energy than its producing. it is not the magical bullet you think it is.

furthermore, as certain installations of solar and wind are actually producing power cheaper than fossil fuels, its contributing to a trajectory where the % fossil fuels in industry can actually diminish.

Interesting that you can understand this concept when its applied to development of grid-scale storage.

But you think its easier and risk free to develop from where we are to R&D plus supply chain, operating procedures, and workforce for safe and cost effective nuclear power?

Grid storage has no cost history. Nuclear power has a known cost history of being too expensive, and its had trillions of dollars of investment so theres no low hanging fruit.

Grid storage has existing components used in other industries and applications, nuclear power doesn't.

I have tried Pi as only PC, I gave up after a short bit. Not to go too much on a tangent, my takeaway is it depends on YOUR life and work whether or not any computer will work.

If you can limit yourself within low resolution, small color pallete, direct use of simple graphics API, basicalyl target the computing experience of when computers had 50mhz CPU. Then its possible to make things blazing fast even on a Pi, using ANY language? I'm sure on a "well ackshually" level there is some difference in how the CPU executes things but practically its like milliseconds and milliamps not anything perceptable.

WIth C Im not sure if I know what im talking about here (i've compiled hello world with gcc myself, otherwise i know how to use Make even though i dont understand it but ive also never needed to understand it, but seems like every project uses makefiles or something like it...) but isn't compiling SDL or libdraw a 1 time thing the very first time you build the program, then each time you make a change to orca.c it compiles pretty quick (until 'make clean')? you dont include the time to re-compile uxn emulator when you say uxn is 50x faster? What is ASAN?

>many measures the most demonstrably successful game developer without a big studio

ex gamer here (player only, no idea about the game making industry), never heard of him or any games. Is he really the most successful? From the outside i would have guessed hte most successful indy game dev, based on how much they're talked about, would be something like: dwarf fortress, minecraft, flappy birds, wordle...

Why can't you compile C on a raspberry pi 3?? Thats a supercomputer compared to anything that existed throughout the 80s 90s. Especially since your progs seem to be pretty small with kind of vintage retro graphics id imagine they compile basically instantly? I never programmed a videogame but isn't the common pattern to make a game engine plus embedded scripting language intreprter so you dont have to recompile for all the little tweaks? I mean dont get me wrong no reason not to do what you did but i'm not seeing the unique challenges solved, like in what direction r u trying to move the needle here?

>No

You aren't disagreeing with me. The claim is that we live in the best world possible, not the best world imaginable. The compromises you mention are necessary due to the underlying reality of resource scarcity. We may act to change our environment in many ways but can not violate the laws of the universe.

So actually we live in the best world possible[1] with the best technology possible. If it were possible to make a better iPHone, someone would have made it, but the fact that it doesn't exist means its either not possible or not good to have a removable battery on an iphone.

[1] according to this book i read in highschool, it was called Candide

I just got off the phone with my local university extension program. They said you're wrong. Sorry.