Tesla New Model Unveil...

CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
It’s difficult to factor in future costs when we don’t know the environmental damage the ongoing uptick in background radiation is causing so it seems sensible to reduce radioactive emissions as we are carbon. The costs are more than just financial so I’m for upscaling renewables more than increasing fission power.
Click to expand...
I figure even a robust uptick in background is less harmful than a warming cascade. That’s just me.

I don’t know a good renewables scheme to feed cheapish steady gigawatts to an aluminum smelter or a desalination plant.

I’m advocating nuclear for heavy industry. Other uses are generally well swerved by wind and solar.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
I figure even a robust uptick in background is less harmful than a warming cascade. That’s just me.

I don’t know a good renewables scheme to feed cheapish steady gigawatts to an aluminum smelter or a desalination plant.

I’m advocating nuclear for heavy industry. Other uses are generally well swerved by wind and solar.
Click to expand...
Really? You're good with increased cancer and other diseases from nuclear materials FOREVER, no matter what? Seems short-sighted, kind of like shitting in your grandkid's Christmas stockings.

The solutions for global warming already exist, they're cheap and they're rolling out in ever increasing amounts.

Your concerns about cheap energy for aluminum smelting is actually a great case in point; there's nothing about the process that requires it to run 24/7; what's needed is cheap Watts. Well, California is already experiencing the "problem" of electrical oversupply during daytime due to large quantities of installed solar. Midday prices are approaching zero. That's a fucking gold mine for aluminum production! Not all industrial processes are as flexible as aluminum production but those that are have a big incentive to take advantage of excess energy generated on a regular schedule.

Nuclear power is so heavily subsidised it's hard to get firm apples to apples numbers about total, all in costs. One of the biggest costs is dealing with high level, long lived waste materials. Another is the non zero chance of meltdown. I've looked into nuclear energy for many years and I've come to the conclusion that it may be a good solution in places where radioactivity is endemic, like outer space but it's no good here on Earth. Molten salt reactors are promising but also at the beginning of their development cycle and will be late to the climate change party.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Really? You're good with increased cancer and other diseases from nuclear materials FOREVER, no matter what? Seems short-sighted, kind of like shitting in your grandkid's Christmas stockings.

The solutions for global warming already exist, they're cheap and they're rolling out in ever increasing amounts.

Your concerns about cheap energy for aluminum smelting is actually a great case in point; there's nothing about the process that requires it to run 24/7; what's needed is cheap Watts. Well, California is already experiencing the "problem" of electrical oversupply during daytime due to large quantities of installed solar. Midday prices are approaching zero. That's a fucking gold mine for aluminum production! Not all industrial processes are as flexible as aluminum production but those that are have a big incentive to take advantage of excess energy generated on a regular schedule.

Nuclear power is so heavily subsidised it's hard to get firm apples to apples numbers about total, all in costs. One of the biggest costs is dealing with high level, long lived waste materials. Another is the non zero chance of meltdown. I've looked into nuclear energy for many years and I've come to the conclusion that it may be a good solution in places where radioactivity is endemic, like outer space but it's no good here on Earth. Molten salt reactors are promising but also at the beginning of their development cycle and will be late to the climate change party.
Click to expand...
FOREVER is hyperbole. Every radionuclide has a finite half-life.

Solution for global warming, cheap? Why have I not heard of a one? Dealing with global warming will be man’s most expensive and difficult project in all history.

(instructor voice) Exam today is an essay, open book: Reverse ice sheet melting. Cheap. Within a decade. You have 50 minutes. Go.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
FOREVER is hyperbole. Every radionuclide has a finite half-life.

Solution for global warming, cheap? Why have I not heard of a one? Dealing with global warming will be man’s most expensive and difficult project in all history.

(instructor voice) Exam today is an essay, open book: Reverse ice sheet melting. Cheap. Within a decade. You have 50 minutes. Go.
Click to expand...
Granted on the finite half life; lots of transuranics, plutonium included, have half lives in excess of the entire time humanity has been scratching in the dirt and growing its own food. That's close enough to forever not to make any difference.

Stop conflating; cheap daytime Watts are a reality today in California and elsewhere. This is not a problem unless we insist. Cheap energy from renewables is the only effective way to deal with climate change; I'm not saying that's cheap and you know it.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Granted on the finite half life; lots of transuranics, plutonium included, have half lives in excess of the entire time humanity has been scratching in the dirt and growing its own food. That's close enough to forever not to make any difference.

Stop conflating; cheap daytime Watts are a reality today in California and elsewhere. This is not a problem unless we insist. Cheap energy from renewables is the only effective way to deal with climate change; I'm not saying that's cheap and you know it.
Click to expand...
You completely dismissed the cost of stopping global warming. This is not a function if prices on an unreliable energy source on the user timescale.

Address the cost of stopping global warming.
This is NOT “ stopping carbon emissions”, since that will take us past the point of catastrophe. We have a quadrillion tons of carbon dioxide to remove from the biosphere. Talk to me about that technology and what it will cost to
-develop
-implement it.
It would help if you stayed on topic this time.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
You completely dismissed the cost of stopping global warming. This is not a function if prices on an unreliable energy source on the user timescale.

Address the cost of stopping global warming.
This is NOT “ stopping carbon emissions”, since that will take us past the point of catastrophe. We have a quadrillion tons of carbon dioxide to remove from the biosphere. Talk to me about that technology and what it will cost to
-develop
-implement it.
It would help if you stayed on topic this time.
Click to expand...
Nuclear doesn't solve that equation, either.

But I'll let you try first.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
Dishonest.
It is unpleasant to try to reason with a confirmed troll.
Click to expand...
Not dishonest at all! You're the nuclear advocate so by all means, lead us off with your best case about how nuclear power can solve the climate problem. I'll even spot you "robust increases in background radiation" AND an unlimited budget.

I'm quite serious. Climate change has to be solved.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Not dishonest at all! You're the nuclear advocate so by all means, lead us off with your best case about how nuclear power can solve the climate problem. I'll even spot you "robust increases in background radiation" AND an unlimited budget.

I'm quite serious. Climate change has to be solved.
Click to expand...
I asked first. Make with the cheap remediation tech.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CatHedral said:
I asked first. Make with the cheap remediation tech.
Click to expand...
Solar installations are increasing at an exponential rate around the world, even as prices continue to fall.

Wind power installations are also increasing at an exponential rate, again as prices per megawatt generated continue to fall.

Utility scale battery storage is nearer the beginning of the same trends as above, but prices per installed megawatt are falling and installations are indeed following an exponential growth curve.

There's a strong movement to require car makers and battery charging companies to build cars and charging points that accommodate some form of smart vehicle to grid connectivity, which would substantially increase the total amount of energy storage available. This change would cost very little to implement going forward and even retrofits amount to software updates in many cases. That means every electric car of an exponentially growing fleet (there's that word again) contributes to climate change mitigation whether it's being driven or not.

California is again leading the nation by requiring that all new home construction have solar panels installed.

These trends taken together point to their ability to address climate change issues on a massive scale by attacking two of the three legs of the problem; transportation fuels and electrical generation. Are they there yet? Of course not but today's fleet of coal, oil and gas power plants and vehicles weren't all built in a day, either.

Pumped hydro and geothermal energy production have some growth potential but I agree with those who say it's limited.

Energy efficiency is always worthwhile in terms of getting more use out of every megawatt generated by whatever means.

I think this constitutes the best chance humanity has of retaining the advantages brought by modern technology and addressing climate change.

A note on exponential growth; like Moore's Law for microprocessor capacity, the effects of such growth can be hard to imagine more than a few years ahead of time. Humanity got into this fix via exponential growth of forum fuels use and it's going to take the same to get us out.

Even if we went all in on nuclear tomorrow, I just don't see it making much of a dent; it's too expensive and takes too long to build. Modular units might help but costs of development, security, storage, waste disposal and decommissioning need to be accounted for, whether industry foots the bill or not. And how to even account for the inevitable proliferation of fissile materials and Fukushima style accidents? It's easy to write off those costs from half a planet away but the former residents will never, ever be able to move back. Nor will their grandchildren. That would seem to defeat the purpose of saving the planet.

Your turn.
 
CatHedral

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Solar installations are increasing at an exponential rate around the world, even as prices continue to fall.

Wind power installations are also increasing at an exponential rate, again as prices per megawatt generated continue to fall.

Utility scale battery storage is nearer the beginning of the same trends as above, but prices per installed megawatt are falling and installations are indeed following an exponential growth curve.

There's a strong movement to require car makers and battery charging companies to build cars and charging points that accommodate some form of smart vehicle to grid connectivity, which would substantially increase the total amount of energy storage available. This change would cost very little to implement going forward and even retrofits amount to software updates in many cases. That means every electric car of an exponentially growing fleet (there's that word again) contributes to climate change mitigation whether it's being driven or not.

California is again leading the nation by requiring that all new home construction have solar panels installed.

These trends taken together point to their ability to address climate change issues on a massive scale by attacking two of the three legs of the problem; transportation fuels and electrical generation. Are they there yet? Of course not but today's fleet of coal, oil and gas power plants and vehicles weren't all built in a day, either.

Pumped hydro and geothermal energy production have some growth potential but I agree with those who say it's limited.

Energy efficiency is always worthwhile in terms of getting more use out of every megawatt generated by whatever means.

I think this constitutes the best chance humanity has of retaining the advantages brought by modern technology and addressing climate change.

A note on exponential growth; like Moore's Law for microprocessor capacity, the effects of such growth can be hard to imagine more than a few years ahead of time. Humanity got into this fix via exponential growth of forum fuels use and it's going to take the same to get us out.

Even if we went all in on nuclear tomorrow, I just don't see it making much of a dent; it's too expensive and takes too long to build. Modular units might help but costs of development, security, storage, waste disposal and decommissioning need to be accounted for, whether industry foots the bill or not. And how to even account for the inevitable proliferation of fissile materials and Fukushima style accidents? It's easy to write off those costs from half a planet away but the former residents will never, ever be able to move back. Nor will their grandchildren. That would seem to defeat the purpose of saving the planet.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
You again dodged the question.
 
smokinrav

smokinrav

Well-Known Member
Cybertruck lol. Elon may be the best marketer ever.

Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) aims to start initial production of its much-anticipated Cybertruck by the end of the first quarter of 2023, pushing back its plan to begin production late this year, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

The person said the delay comes as Tesla is changing features and functions of the electric pickup to make a compelling product as competition heats up in the segment.

Tesla is expected to make limited production of the Cybertruck in the first quarter of 2023 before increasing output, the source said.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Click to expand...
jalopnik.com

So Much For The Tesla Cybertruck This Year: Report

Tesla is monitoring the fast-changing electric truck market and making adjustments accordingly.
jalopnik.com jalopnik.com
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
smokinrav said:
Cybertruck lol. Elon may be the best marketer ever.



jalopnik.com

So Much For The Tesla Cybertruck This Year: Report

Tesla is monitoring the fast-changing electric truck market and making adjustments accordingly.
jalopnik.com jalopnik.com
Click to expand...
Well the fuckers been collecting interest on my down payment for his “sky net” for a year, just got email “it will be available by mid to end of 2022”. Alright enough already, give me back my money…. Just got high speed unlimited as I do a happy dance lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top