cschwarm

6 ms·

1.
by cschwarm 3y ago
That is common human behavior, not corruption of what would be 'good' behavior otherwise. The only difference to academics is that normal people don't try to create a consistent theory. We merely pick from whatever is availab
2.
by cschwarm 3y ago
Question(s) to the nuclear supporters here: 1. Are you talking about global electricity? Or just the West? 2. How much nuclear power do you want? 20%, 50%, 70%, or 100%? Or something else? 3. What nuclear technology? Traditional, Molten Sal
3.
by cschwarm 4y ago
Trying to estimate the total costs of the externalities, like most economists currently suggest, is complete non-sense, in my opinion. Their methods are dubious to put it mildly [1], and they also replace the politically accepted goal with
4.
by cschwarm 4y ago
Popularity doesn't determine whether an answer is correct or not.
5.
by cschwarm 4y ago
The article fails to mention the costs of reducing carbon emissions. Compared to that, US$100 per tonne of CO₂ can be cheap. The shutdown of the economy during Covid-19 provided a case study for the costs of reducing emissions by reducing c
6.
by cschwarm 4y ago
If Germany had kept its nuclear plants, it would be burning about as much fossil fuels as it does now. That's because without the opposition to nuclear, the motivating reason to build up renewables would have been gone, so it wouldn&#x
7.
by cschwarm 4y ago
I think your information is out of date. It appears the wind park with hydrogen production is still active [1]. [1] https://enertrag.com/produkte/windgas
8.
by cschwarm 4y ago
I'm trying to get away from a DB-based CMS for some company web sites. Static generators won't do for a number of reasons, so a flat-file CMS seems like a good fit. Currently I'm looking at GravCMS [1] as an alternative. It&#
9.
by cschwarm 4y ago
> it would have been quicker if Germany had kept nuclear online no question This is a misconception. Germany invested in renewables because we wanted to get rid of nuclear, not to save the climate. Germany has a population of about 80 mi
10.
by cschwarm 4y ago
I agree. France was lucky and smart enough to socialize the profits of nuclear, and the public there is still mostly supportive. People may say that they worry about the risks, but that's just a rationalization presented to others.
11.
by cschwarm 4y ago
You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Also, in the German climate and with its many 'old' buildings, merely switching the heat source won't do. One also needs additional isolation, and new r
12.
by cschwarm 5y ago
> What Germany did was very quickly turn off all nuclear power plants without any plans on replacing them with sustainable alternatives. This is not quite correct. The first decision to phase-out nuclear was made around the year 2000 [1]
13.
by cschwarm 6y ago
Interestingly, this isn't "evo-psych work", as anyone would see who'd knew how evolutionary psychology works. In fact, the kind of argument used by the authors is more in line what human paleontology looks like.
14.
by cschwarm 7y ago
I agree with the biochar suggestion, but I'd also suggest to bury both biochar and syn-oil deep in the ground -- at least, in the first decades or so. That's because I don't believe the usual sales pitch for biochar actually
15.
by cschwarm 7y ago
I think, they would be happy to keep their jobs and get paid for several decades to come. Also, the coal companies wouldn't have to write off their investments, since some of their technology could probably be reused.
16.
by cschwarm 7y ago
Burying biochar (the superset of charcoal, basically) in old coal mines or other geological structures is a feasible way for long-term storage. The carbon content can be up to 90%, depending on the method. Biochar can be made from nearly al
17.
by cschwarm 7y ago
France had a nationalized energy supply and distribution when it build its nuclear power plants. This was an important factor for their success. Try exporting the nationalization of the energy supply to the U.S.. By the way, they are still
18.
by cschwarm 7y ago
I prefer taxes because there's a reliable "shadow of the future". Market prices may go up and down depending on how many certificates are issued, how professional traders behave, and how technology progresses. So, I'd su
19.
by cschwarm 8y ago
> France with nuclear remains the first world country with the cheapest, … France had a nationalized electricity grid when it build its nuclear fleet. So, the demand side was nationalized (EDF), and they made sure to nationalize the supp
20.
by cschwarm 8y ago
Biochar is unlikely to be cheaper than coal, ever. Optimistic long-term estimates are $100 per ton [1]. [1] http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/4080/beyond--the--hype
21.
by cschwarm 8y ago
> There needs to be some sort of way to bury the biomass in order to put that carbon out of the atmosphere for good. Biochar would be suitable [1]. However, wood is probably not the best feedstock, due to its slow growth compared to othe
22.
by cschwarm 8y ago
Indeed! However, we do not know how long biochar lasts when used as a soil amendment [eg. 1]. Also, it's only useful in this way when loaded and applied to poor soil in the tropics [2]. For long term storage of CO2, it might be better
23.
by cschwarm 10y ago
Surely, there's a middle way. Since we are talking about a club good [1], a club would be the appropriate alternative. Assuming a fee of 20$/month for people in developed countries and 100.000 members, this would cover about 1.000
24.
by cschwarm 11y ago
In my opinion, something like the Gigafactory only makes sense in the context of (expected) innovations. The usual way to lower costs is to specialize, and to have a diverse network of suppliers. The Gigafactory is meant to do everything un
25.
by cschwarm 12y ago
The hydrogen fuel chain is very inefficient [1]. Building up a fuelling infrastructure would very expensive compared to a fast charger network, by about a factor of 5 to 10. The fuel itself is still rather expensive [2]. Only a few Japanese
26.
by cschwarm 13y ago
There is, for instance, the problem that some "goods" cannot be produced although people care very much about them, namely partners to start a family with. Unfortunately, women tend to be attracted to relatively rich men, which ca
27.
by cschwarm 13y ago
Since the term 'Christians' captures a sample of about 2.35 billion people, differences are to be expected. I admit I should have added a qualifier somewhere. Anyway, there's also a difference, in my opinion, between the more fuzzy term "ve
28.
by cschwarm 13y ago
> Then I pointed that their prophet had a 9 year old wife (that by the way this girl also wrote good part of their holy book) and then she said that this does not count... Tell a Christian that Jesus' mother, Mary, was probably 13 years
29.
by cschwarm 14y ago
> So why the decline in quality on so, so many things that we buy? The common answer is information asymmetries. The seminal paper is Akerlof's "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism". [1] Simply speaking,
30.
by cschwarm 14y ago
It's easy to dismiss a field when you compare a complicated problem to an easy problem, and then object to a lack of answers for the complicated problem, because there are so much more and better answers for the easy problem. Let's face it:

More ›