Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Dahobbs

    My dog died

    Condolences. But also strange to put this in the hobbies forum...
  2. Honestly, not using pronouns would be incredibly woke.
  3. Yeah guys, it isn't like a Russian agent would try and fracture NATO, weaken US global force deployment, attempt to pit America against itself and its allies, institute economic policies that would destabilize the most powerful economy on earth, repeat Russian propaganda about a war that Russia started, or give Russia everything it wants in a "peace" negotiation to end that war. What's that? That is exactly what a Russian agent would do? Never mind then.
  4. Don't worry guys, @The Original Greaser Bob says this can't possibly happen and is no big deal.
  5. I would rather the world burn than state I ever supported or even agreed with Donald fucking Trump. You sir, can kiss my ass.
  6. Turns out, the real thing might also star Steven Seagal as Russia's special counsel to the President.
  7. I don't believe combustion of hydrocarbons specifically is needed, but I understand your point. Combustion is a part of the normal carbon cycle of the planet. Your second point makes some intuitive sense, but I don't think is a meaningful driver of global warming. The heat itself from burning hydrocarbons is a statistical rounding error compared to the overall change driven by increased greenhouse gases. More critically, I'm pretty sure heat from combustion on its own would be radiated into space rather than drive meaningful climate change. The extent to which it remains captured by the planet would, I believe, mostly depend on increasing greenhouse levels preventing its release to space.
  8. Why are you posting an article from 2018?
  9. I think @Captainant may be over estimating the energy use. I'm not sure I believe that the rig would be going near all out at 500w 24/7. But also you have to keep in mind that the required energy use per bitcoin has gone up over time because of the design of the system. There is also an increase in efficiency with the more GPU cores you have available.
  10. I don't think you're doing that math correctly. It looks like you're just using the energy charge. You have to include the power supply adjustment, regulatory charge, and community benefit charge. Even at the lowest energy charge tier of $.04106 per kWh, after accounting for everything else you're total cost per kwh is $.107 per kWh. That would total $1,416 for 13,140 kWh. But that would also be an impossible rate because there is no way that person isn't exceeding 300 kWh per month. I think the minimum realistic cost is probably the tier 3 energy charge of $.07525 per kWh. All in that is $.14197 per kWh and would total $1,865.48 for 13,140 kWh.
  11. This also works for dogs. Basically, do all the dog things.
  12. Unfortunately, I think any purge is going to have to be a violent one.
  13. We are doing a great job proving that.
  14. Yes. A big part of the reason for the US security blanket is not only did in bring most of the world under our sphere of influence, but it discouraged nuclear proliferation because anyone allied with us wouldn't need them (and we told them not to develop them).
  15. No. They'll be killing us when we commit troops to help Russia. It is only a matter of time at this point. We are the bad guys.
  16. The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But... 2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.
  17. Unfortunately, the external enemy we are giving them is us.
  18. Nailed @Laxtonto. Trump is totally playing hardball with Russia now. Really solid foresight and analysis. Or just complete fucking garbage. Whatever.
  19. Dahobbs

    LBGTQ

    That is amazing. There is a not insignificant possibility that some DOJ lawyers may get disbarred or suspended based on the arguments they are having to make.
  20. And that is a fair point. I think the fair way to say it is that primary energy consumption has been flat since 1995. Electric generation was flat from 2006 until recently, but the rise of crypto-currency and AI is changing that over the last couple of years. Worldwide trends are bit more difficult to deal with because you have decreases or flattening in the countries with the highest share of energy consumption and increases in countries with historically lower shares of energy consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). If the US population had been flat or decreasing like other Western and developed nations, our total energy usage would have decreased significantly. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
  21. I don't think you were necessarily in the wrong thread. That balance is an important topic in a thread concerned about the climate. But I do think it can become difficult to manage when both sides (truly in this case) get defensive about certain slights. I apologize for my post upthread where you got caught in the cross-fire with another poster than I felt was being dismissing/obtuse.
  22. The problem is also mixing up energy return on investment for monetary return on investment. These aren't the same thing. Energy return on investment just tells me how much energy out I get for a given amount of energy in. Whether it costs more or less to get than energy or whether that energy causes downstream economic costs are all irrelevant to that metric.
  23. It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant. But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. typo that I didn't catch in time.
  24. No. EROEI does not attempt to account for externalities like climate change. It isn't part of the formula at all. Energy in, Energy out. That's what matters to it. Lifecycle costs analysis may or may not include costs from climate change in the model depending upon who is doing the analysis. Some analysis is done to model the economic viability of a particular project, so it only cares about those costs that may actually impact the project (i.e., captured costs). That sort of analysis will by design not account for externalities because, by definition, those will not impact the project. What the fuck are you talking about? He responded to a very specific insult ("Gretas") with a very specific answer that was totally appropriate in a fucking thread titled "Climate Change" not "Rex ignores basic science and how it impacts everyone." Who do you think he was implying are the psuedo-scientists here? Because I can promise you Rex wasn't intending to dismiss the few phony scientists that dismiss human driven climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions.
×
×
  • Create New...