Extinction Rebellion

[George Hannah]

Precisely and the rich may start off well but it won’t end that way. Their comfortable lives ironically will be what gets them.

Not a good prospect

 

[Chippy_boy]

Bury your head, it’s fine.

Don’t moan though when inconvenience turns into survival for you.

Honestly mate, what ridiculous melodrama.

There are no credible predictions which could lead to human extinction. In fact I would go so far as to say that human extinction as a result of climate change is actually completely impossible.

Worst case, absolute worst case, we see very significant sea level rise, loss of low-lying regions and changes in habitat. And that assumes that faced with such catastophe, we decided to just sit back and let it happen. As opposed to deciding to do something about it - such as truly enormous carbon sequestration plants; algae farms on truly gigantic scale, for example - which of course we would do if things became truly calamitous.

It took one country less than a decade to put a man on the moon when they put their mind to it. And yet we're belng asked to believe that the combined efforts and resources of the entire human race could not find a solution to fix an impending climate catastrophe?

It's a ridiculous suggestion. We are not just going to sit back and watch ourselves become extinct. The reason more is not being done (yet) is because it isn't an impending catastrophe yet, and may well never be. If it becomes so, we'll deal with it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Not really, not when it comes to material science and alloys (which are huge here, hydrogen fusion is the most destructive force in the universe), it's very much trial and error. My sister works in that industry and when trying to explain it to me once the best she could come up with was "it's like breeding dogs, but far more random and far less successful".

Sounds like either she doesn't know what she's talking about (which I'll assume is unlikely) or she dumbed it down to a quite ludicrous level.

And I've never heard hydrogen fusion being described as a "destructive force" either. It's what's enabled all life to form on our planet and probably on every other planet in the entire universe. It's what's powered our sun in stable equilibrium for 4.6 billion years. Not exactly what most people would describe as a destructive force.

 

[Ban-jani]

Honestly mate, what ridiculous melodrama.

There are no credible predictions which could lead to human extinction. In fact I would go so far as to say that human extinction as a result of climate change is actually completely impossible.

Worst case, absolute worst case, we see very significant sea level rise, loss of low-lying regions and changes in habitat. And that assumes that faced with such catastophe, we decided to just sit back and let it happen. As opposed to deciding to do something about it - such as truly enormous carbon sequestration plants; algae farms on truly gigantic scale, for example - which of course we would do if things became truly calamitous.

It took one country less than a decade to put a man on the moon when they put their mind to it. And yet we're belng asked to believe that the combined efforts and resources of the entire human race could not find a solution to fix an impending climate catastrophe?

It's a ridiculous suggestion. We are not just going to sit back and watch ourselves become extinct. The reason more is not being done (yet) is because it isn't an impending catastrophe yet, and may well never be. If it becomes so, we'll deal with it.

At what stage have I said the human race will become extinct? Can you please point out where I said that in my “melodrama”?

It’s really not a case of the worst case scenario being sea level rise. The worst case scenario would be large areas, very poor areas at that, will become uninhabitable and thus will make the refugee crisis we’ve just been through look like a family holiday to Benidorm.

There’s the chance of resources being scarce and people and countries fighting over them.

When I say survival, I don’t mean we’re all going to die, I mean a large proportion of the human race and animal life will and what we’re left with might not be for everyone.

Now I’ve always said that technology will come in at some point to help. I read Bill Gates this week is investing in a tech that will create artificial dust particles to create a kind of cloak to shield the earth from the sun and cool it down. This or, as you mentioned, carbon reducing technologies could very much work.

The problem we have is time is running out until we properly fuck the climate and we need to buy solutions enough time.

We’ll never be fully carbon free as a species as some cunts in somewhere like Mongolia will still burn fossil fuels, well until they eventually run out.

It’s all about time and we need keep it on our side until something can eradicate the issue.

 

[aguero93:20]

Sounds like either she doesn't know what she's talking about (which I'll assume is unlikely) or she dumbed it down to a quite ludicrous level.

And I've never heard hydrogen fusion being described as a "destructive force" either. It's what's enabled all life to form on our planet and probably on every other planet in the entire universe. It's what's powered our sun in stable equilibrium for 4.6 billion years. Not exactly what most people would describe as a destructive force.

How else would you describe something burning at 5000°C under high pressure and how would you go about containing it out of interest?

 

[1.618034]

Sounds like either she doesn't know what she's talking about (which I'll assume is unlikely) or she dumbed it down to a quite ludicrous level.

And I've never heard hydrogen fusion being described as a "destructive force" either. It's what's enabled all life to form on our planet and probably on every other planet in the entire universe. It's what's powered our sun in stable equilibrium for 4.6 billion years. Not exactly what most people would describe as a destructive force.

Eh?

The sun isn't a destructive force?

I also seem to remember that nuclear fission can be quite destructive too.

Also, life didn't form because of nuclear fusion on this planet. It created the building blocks, in stars. Not sure we'll find any life on any of them. But maybe a safe distance away, perhaps 93 million miles, or so.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How else would you describe something burning at 5000°C under high pressure and how would you go about containing it out of interest?

Er, in a nuclear fusion reactor???

Were you looking for something other than the obvious answer?

 

[aguero93:20]

Er, in a nuclear fusion reactor???

Were you looking for something other than the obvious answer?

You'll have to explain to me what materials could be used in this reactor that have the strength to contain such temperatures.

 

[George Hannah]

You'll have to explain to me what materials could be used in this reactor that have the strength to contain such temperatures.

Bojo's thick skin

 

[aguero93:20]

Bojo's thick skin

I look forward to the experiment.

 

[inbetween]

How else would you describe something burning at 5000°C under high pressure and how would you go about containing it out of interest?

Fusion reactions in a fusion reactor are confined and created by magnets which increases the pressure and temperature. The temperatures aren't 5000c, they are more like 100 million c.

If the magnets fail then the reaction fails and then it all just stops instantly.

The pressure you are talking of with the sun is due to gravity which is so immense that it starts the reactions at the suns core.

 

[aguero93:20]

Fusion reactions in a fusion reactor are confined and created by magnets which increases the pressure and temperature. The temperatures aren't 5000c, they are more like 8 million c.

If the magnets fail then the reaction fails and then it all just stops instantly.

The pressure you are talking of with the sun is due to gravity which is so immense that it starts the reactions at the suns core.

Not with fusion mate, it literally requires those temperatures to begin and even if it fails that energy has to dissipate somewhere.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Not with fusion mate, it literally requires those temperatures to begin and even if it fails that energy has to dissipate somewhere.

Have a read up on the latest developments on the subject mate. I don't mean to sound condescending but only about 5 posts ago you were asking what materials can contain the plasma, so you clearly know bugger all about it.

We'll have fusion reactors producing net energy by 2035. And workable power stations within 20 years after that. It's not as clean (radioactivity wise) as the hype would have you believe but it's still going to be a huge advance compared to current fission technology.

Here is a good source of info:

https://www.iter.org/

 

[aguero93:20]

Have a read up on the latest developments on the subject mate. I don't mean to sound condescending but only about 5 posts ago you were asking what materials can contain the plasma, so you clearly know bugger all about it.

We'll have fusion reactors producing net energy by 2035. And workable power stations within 20 years after that. It's not as clean (radioactivity wise) as the hype would have you believe but it's still going to be a huge advance compared to current fission technology.

Here is a good source of info:

https://www.iter.org/

If they come up with a material capable of containing it mate, that's a plea for funding, not a guarantee.

 

[Chippy_boy]

If they come up with a material capable of containing it mate, that's a plea for funding, not a guarantee.

Mate, you're making a tit of yourself (sorry to say).

There is no material which can contain 150 million degree plasma. It's contained by 18 enormous torroidal magnets. Please do have a read rather than just blurt out nonsense.

 

[aguero93:20]

Mate, you're making a tit of yourself (sorry to say).

There is no material which can contain 150 million degree plasma. It's contained by 18 enormous torroidal magnets. Please do have a read rather than just blurt out nonsense.

And there hasn't been a single working magnetic model which can channel and contain the energy at a scale large enough to make it economically viable so far. This must be the 50th such proposal I've seen.

 

[Chippy_boy]

And there hasn't been a single working magnetic model which can channel and contain the energy at a scale large enough to make it economically viable so far. This must be the 50th such proposal I've seen.

It's not a proposal you plank.

 

[aguero93:20]

It's not a proposal you plank.

So they've built it and tested it then?

 

[Chippy_boy]

So they've built it and tested it then?

Please stop being stupid.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How on earth can you come out with such tripe as "You'll have to explain to me what materials could be used in this reactor that have the strength to contain such temperatures." if you've read up on 50 proposals?

It's clear you have no clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but that's all there is to be said.