sartalon

joined 1 year ago
[–] sartalon@futurology.today 19 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I got pinged twice, in one visit because I moved shit around, trying to organize.

Way more false positives, in my opinions.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 3 points 1 year ago

You are a moron.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are quoting "The majority of studies..." but I am not sure where you are pulling that from.

I have an issue with that quote since it is absolutely wrong about shipping and air trasport.

Edit:

And furthermore, you can't just abandon a significant sector and expect to pick it up later on.

There is tremendous momentum in each sector and to just focus on one, at the behest of others, is a TERRIBLE idea. Each sector does not exist in a vacuum. They all have supporting industries that also need to be developed and planned out. To put everything into renewables, is irresponsible at best. If we don't subsidize it all all. Then it will be a stillborn process that will never see anything outside an office.

Great, we now have 100% renewables, but we've had elevated CO2 for decades and now we have to spin up carbon capture from scratch because someone had the great idea to drop everything else. So add another 20 years for that to work up. We don't have that luxury.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not as it exists now. There are zero viable solutions for shipping or air travel, for example.

Achievable yes, but not in any near time frame, so we HAVE to look at other mitigating options as well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a very poor strategy.

Building more nuclear WOULD help. Yes, it has a huge capital front cost, and it takes a while to earn that back, but then it keeps paying.

The whole point of allowing these localized monopolies on power, is because power benefits from economy of scale and nuclear, right now, is the pinnacle of that. Large up front cost but also a solid, continual return that doesn't rely on outside factors.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I have to disagree with you because we need to invest now, if for no better reason, to advance carbon capture technology. It needs to advance in parallel. Otherwise we are just pushing that can down the road.

As much as I want to be 100% renewable/clean, that is never going to happen. Not at our population, not at our power demand level, not at our rate of growth.

Hell, we can't even get people to accept nuclear power as part of the solution.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My work is trying to engineer a design /plan for electric school busses connected to the grid.

They are only used for 4-6 hours a day and are stationary the rest. Perfect resource to keep plugged into the grid and help stabilize demand. Our initial study shows they could potentially pay for themselves, but at the very least subsidize their own cost quite significantly.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was left coast and Japan.

HS was a mix of SH-60F's and HH-60H's. But around 2010-2012, the F/B's went away and the HS squadrons' transitioned to MH-60's, and the HSL squadrons' went to the H-60R's.

The HH-60H's got their own squadrons' that were specifically NSW support. East coast already had one, in VA, and they stood one up in SD.

HSC-84/85, I think. I also got out in 2012.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I came in to quote my own squadrons' SH-60 readiness was typically 3 out of 6-7 birds. (SH-60F, so I'm old).