Toasty!

[flatandy]

Small nuclear makes a bit of sense in shipping, like it does in aircraft carriers and submarines. Also, there's lots of fancy wind technology that seems to be coming along a bit faster than the old sailing clippers did. But, yeah. A long time coming as a solution, that one, given how old and rusty most shipping boats are and how cheap everyone is in the shipping industry about improving almost anything.

[voice]

Shipping companies and CEO's always strike me a very disreputable and a bit shady some how. Probably cos much of what they do is not well looked at.

[perrykneeham]

Out-of sight, out of mind. They've made some strides with hydrogen on big boats too. The bulk of hydrogen is less important afloat.

[perrykneeham]

Where is Rick BTW? Has he joined the IDF?

xkcd.com/1732/

[voice]

I assumed he'd be rounded up as part of the ongoing US treason trials, either that or he's be sectioned again

[flatandy]

COP 28 comes to an agreement! It's not enough - it never would be with around 200 nations trying to agree to a text. And it is, of course, just a text with - I think - no real way of binding anyone to it. But still getting the Russians and American and Saudis and Chinese to all sign up to "transitioning away from fossil fuels" feels like a pretty big deal. Every nation on earth no accepts the reality of anthropogenic carbon driven climate change and is going to work to reduce its harm.

[voice]

Will thry though?
Already Alberta has said like f**k we will, the Reps down south are just laughing and saying like f**k we will, so I expect the big producers will be pretty much saying the same

[flatandy]

I’m sure. But the fact they’ve signed up is already a step change.

And the fact that countries have agreed to actually fund some compensation for harm already done is also a massive step, even if the amount of funding is obvious trivial right now, they’ve accepted the principle.

Obviously, as I said, getting the US and China and Russia and Saudi to sign up for anything is a f**k**g miracle. We’d all like lots more but I think it’s good to take this win as a win.

[perrykneeham]

I despair, I really do .....

uk.news.yahoo.com/military-shuns-heat-pumps-favour-153414197.html

[flatandy]

Ugh.

[perrykneeham]

Are supermarkets really going to start selling loose fruit and veg?

www.thesun.co.uk/money/25213279/supermarket-plastic-packaging-crackdown-food-waste/

I hope so.

[mids]

Or live chickens and lambs.

[perrykneeham]

It's probably more wet bank holiday "news". They really don't go looking for things to write meaningful content about. They're lost when Westminster's closed.

[flatandy]

Dec 3, 2014 16:55:13 GMT flatandy said:

It looks like this year is going to be even warmer than the Daily Mail's favourite artificial baseline of 1998!

How are they going to fiddle the figures now?

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

This year is in the running to be the hottest globally and for the UK since records began, early estimates show.

In the first 10 months of 2014, global average air temperature was about 0.57 Celsius above the long-term average.

And there we are, here's the original post in the thread.

Guess what: 2023 is the warmest year ever. So all those people who said we'd had a pause after 1998 and changed to "there's been no warming since 2016" are going to start at it again.

It'll probably be 2023 which will be the start of their New New "New Pause" because the El Nino is currently ongoing and 2024 may well be as warm as 2023 and it'll look like it's flat, and then cooling for the subsequent years, just as long as the record doesn't go back any further than that

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67861954

[voice]

It's official, 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded by quite some margin with 2024 set to be even hotter. 1.8 degrees hotter then pre industrial averages.

Guess the new pause will be delayed a bit longer

www.cbc.ca/news/science/2023-hottest-year-on-record-1.7077959

[voice]

I feel I've been waiting my entire life for this to work.

One step closer?

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68233330

[happyhammerhead]

'If successfully scaled up to commercial levels it could produce endless amounts of clean energy without carbon emissions. And crucially unlike wind and solar energy would not be at the mercy of weather conditions.

But as Dr Aneeqa Khan, Research Fellow in Nuclear Fusion, University of Manchester explained, this is not straightforward.

"In order for the atoms to fuse together on Earth, we need temperatures ten times hotter than the Sun - around 100 million celsius, and we need a high enough density of the atoms and for a long enough time," she explained.

A Woman... explaining...?

[flatandy]

Yeah, it's always been "20-30 years until we have a power station" ever since I can remember. The UK claiming it'll have one by 2040 is actually a pretty big step forward. ITER being delayed by a decade seems entirely unsurprising.

It's always the dream. It has always felt like it should work. But it seems very long and slow and incredibly expensive to get there and perhaps we'll have sufficient wind, solar and geothermal - and storage - that by the time it arrives and is viable we won't actually need it.

[perrykneeham]

This was interesting, but it seems like a naive pipedream. Dunno.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/26/britain-harness-power-sahara-solar-farms-cable-laying-ship/

I was surprised that transmission losses are only about 3% per 1000km.

[mids]

It seems a bit pie in the sky and also almost 10 years off. A lot can happen in 10 years with still developing technology. Plus the cable will no doubt transmit immigrants too.