Off Topic Thread 4.0

Clegg

molloyjh wrote: »

Brienne, Grey Worm & Gendry

Yep.

Huge death flags surrounding them after their scenes this week.

I'm also going to add Theon and Davos to that list. Theon may not go next week, but he will before the end. His scenes with Yara capped off that story arc and the fact he's going to be guarding Bran all points to a gallant last stand where he finally feels like he's redeemed himself.

Davos had that scene with the stand in Shireen which I think was a reminder to the audience that he has lost pretty much everything he cares about. He has a wife and kids but they're never mentioned. All he had were Shireen, Stannis and Jon. The former are dead and he needs to make sure the latter succeeds. So I guess he'll go out in a blaze of glory. Shame too as he's low key the best character in the series.

awec

Next week's episode is going to be pure balls to the wall action. Can't wait.

Tomtom364

awec wrote: »

Next week's episode is going to be pure balls to the wall action. Can't wait.

pretty sure this report of a marathon 55 night filming is for the episode next week.

https://www.buzz.ie/movies-tv/game-thrones-just-finished-filming-55-night-battle-shoot-280232

DonVito

Deleted User wrote: »

Really disappointed in the new season of thrones. Second episode is so bad I had I had to double check I hadn't downloaded some parody version of the episode.

It was like watching one of those Marvel movies. Genuinely couldn't watch the screen at times. I think they're just pandering to the hardcore audience now. Low hanging fruit stuff.

I can just imagine Arya and the Hound competing for white walker kills next. :rolleyes:

Dave_The_Sheep

Clegg wrote: »

Yep.

Huge death flags surrounding them after their scenes this week.

I'm also going to add Theon and Davos to that list. Theon may not go next week, but he will before the end. His scenes with Yara capped off that story arc and the fact he's going to be guarding Bran all points to a gallant last stand where he finally feels like he's redeemed himself.

Of the crowd in fireplace room, only the Lannisters are making it out of next episode. Davos killed defending the crypts, probably defending that young one that looks like Shireen. Tormund to go out killing an undead giant. Pod to go defending Brienne, and Brienne to go down not leaving him behind.

Theon, defending Bran. Jorah to go, probably defending Lyanna Mormont, thus redeeming himself in the service of his house. Gendry too. Going to be funny when Arya runs into undead Gendry.

Grey Worm for sure, but who really cares about him, or yer one.
__________________

Clegg

Watched a few documentaries about climate change. This is a real and observable phenomenon which governments are ignoring. Even if the latest measurements are off and we have more than 10 years to begin changing economic and environmental policy, I worry we've done too much damage.

These new eco protest marches are a start, but until we have proper environmentally conscious regimes in place we're just kicking the can down the road.

Neil3030

Only way to get people to care is to give them something that immediately benefits them. Get renewable energy (a) as effective and (b) as cheap as non-renewables, and we save the planet. It's literally the only way.

troyzer

Renewables are fundamentally not a viable solution.

Nuclear is the only way forward.

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

Renewables are fundamentally not a viable solution.

Nuclear is the only way forward.

Nothing is the solution but renewables and nuclear should both be part of one.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Nothing is the solution but renewables and nuclear should both be part of one.

France was almost entirely powered by nuclear energy.

It started to introduce renewables and its emissions actually went up. Germany is rapidly increasing its renewable mix as well but because it's moving away from nuclear, its emissions are going up.

Any move towards renewables and away from nuclear requires new carbon burning plants for baseload.

A mix isn't necessary, ditch renewables and commit to nuclear.

thomond2006

I'm at the GoT exhibition in TEC Belfast.

The level of detail that went into designing the sets, costumes etc is staggering.

errlloyd

I wish GoT could just drop as whole season, or in movie format or w/e. Spoilers are annoying, but theories are almost as annoying. And theories that are being enhanced by next week's preview are the most annoying.

stephen_n

Deck chairs on the Titanic, that sums up most of the thinking on climate change. There are far too many humans on the planet, till the conversation shifts to addressing that, everything else is just noise.

troyzer

stephen_n wrote: »

Deck chairs on the Titanic, that sums up most of the thinking on climate change. There are far too many humans on the planet, till the conversation shifts to addressing that, everything else is just noise.

Even assuming we could somehow get population reduction by consent, how would we fix the demographic crisis that followed?

Japan is very slowly depopulating and it's absolutely ****ed economically as a result.

b.gud

stephen_n wrote: »

Deck chairs on the Titanic, that sums up most of the thinking on climate change. There are far too many humans on the planet, till the conversation shifts to addressing that, everything else is just noise.

So what you're saying is we need a Thanos type character to sort things out?

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

France was almost entirely powered by nuclear energy.

It started to introduce renewables and its emissions actually went up. Germany is rapidly increasing its renewable mix as well but because it's moving away from nuclear, its emissions are going up.

Any move towards renewables and away from nuclear requires new carbon burning plants for baseload.

A mix isn't necessary, ditch renewables and commit to nuclear.

And Denmark produces most of its energy from renewable.

It's utterly stupid to focus on any one replacement - where renewable is viable what on earth is the problem with it? Have nuclear for baseload but even as a big proponent of it, it is obviously not without its problems. I have no time for anti-nuclear greens, but I can't see why anyone would be against renewable energy generation.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

And Denmark produces most of its energy from renewable.

It's utterly stupid to focus on any one replacement - where renewable is viable what on earth is the problem with it? Have nuclear for baseload but even as a big proponent of it, it is obviously not without its problems. I have no time for anti-nuclear greens, but I can't see why anyone would be against renewable energy generation.

I'm against it for the simple reason that it's ineffecient, wasteful and produces more emissions and costs more than if you just went all nuclear.

Individual, small countries might be able to do a Denmark but they are not the model for all countries. It's also not a coincidence that Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Economically, Denmark is a bit of an outlier as well in how dominant its service sector is. Its agriculture is nominal and it has a very small manufacturing industry and despite all this, its carbon emissions per capita aren't particularly impressive. They're higher than both Italy and France, the two big nuclear energy powers in Europe. It's a lot lower than Germany, yes. But Germany makes everything and despite a lot of political will, it's really struggling to get its emissions down.

Even if every country was like Denmark, we simply don't have the raw materials or manufacturing capacity to duplicate Denmark all over the world.

stephen_n

b.gud wrote: »

So what you're saying is we need a Thanos type character to sort things out?

Well now I wouldn’t be going as far as genocide, but mass sterilization maybe required on a global scale.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Well now I wouldn’t be going as far as genocide, but mass sterilization maybe required on a global scale.

A... genophage?

Neil3030

troyzer wrote: »

I'm against it for the simple reason that it's ineffecient, wasteful and produces more emissions and costs more than if you just went all nuclear.

Individual, small countries might be able to do a Denmark but they are not the model for all countries. It's also not a coincidence that Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Economically, Denmark is a bit of an outlier as well in how dominant its service sector is. Its agriculture is nominal and it has a very small manufacturing industry and despite all this, its carbon emissions per capita aren't particularly impressive. They're higher than both Italy and France, the two big nuclear energy powers in Europe. It's a lot lower than Germany, yes. But Germany makes everything and despite a lot of political will, it's really struggling to get its emissions down.

Even if every country was like Denmark, we simply don't have the raw materials or manufacturing capacity to duplicate Denmark all over the world.

The point about different economies is a good one, and you're right to say that nuclear is needed. However, the biggest advantage nuclear has over renewable is its consistency. We simply don't have good enough batteries to store the intermittent production of renewables, i.e., at times when supply exceeds demand. And with things like solar, overproduction at peak times will actually f up your grid. If we got to the point where non-renewables could ramp up and down as efficiently as nuclear in accordance with demand, it's absolutely the way forward. Also worth noting that while nuclear is efficient, and consistent, it's also not a long-term solution because it remains non-renewable. Fuel will eventually run out if the entire world switched its entire energy production immediately to nuclear. And then what? So we need get more countries going nuclear in tandem with an effort to increase consistency and efficiency of renewable sources of energy.

Its agriculture is nominal

This is actually where we can make the most immediate impact. A hamburger creates approximately as much CO2 equivalent gas as burning half a gallon of gasoline. Another way to look at this - approximately six times as much energy goes into creating the hamburger as comes out of it (if you normalise everything in terms calories). For context, fish farms in Norway are getting their ratios down closer to 1:1. Also worth noting that over half of the CO2 equivalent gas created by cattle farming is from the animals burping and farting, so technologies could focus on some combination of capturing the methane, genetically modifying the animals' gut chemistry and using different feeds.

troyzer

Neil3030 wrote: »

The point about different economies is a good one, and you're right to say that nuclear is needed. However, the biggest advantage nuclear has over renewable is its consistency. We simply don't have good enough batteries to store the intermittent production of renewables, i.e., at times when supply exceeds demand. And with things like solar, overproduction at peak times will actually f up your grid. If we got to the point where non-renewables could ramp up and down as efficiently as nuclear in accordance with demand, it's absolutely the way forward. Also worth noting that while nuclear is efficient, and consistent, it's also not a long-term solution because it remains non-renewable. Fuel will eventually run out if the entire world switched its entire energy production immediately to nuclear. And then what? So we need get more countries going nuclear in tandem with an effort to increase consistency and efficiency of renewable sources of energy.



This is actually where we can make the most immediate impact. A hamburger creates approximately as much CO2 equivalent gas as burning half a gallon of gasoline. Another way to look at this - approximately six times as much energy goes into creating the hamburger as comes out of it (if you normalise everything in terms calories). For context, fish farms in Norway are getting their ratios down closer to 1:1. Also worth noting that over half of the CO2 equivalent gas created by cattle farming is from the animals burping and farting, so technologies could focus on some combination of capturing the methane, genetically modifying the animals' gut chemistry and using different feeds.

Why would you bother investing in expensive nuclear plants AND solar/wind? The biggest advantage of nuclear is not its consistency, it's that it produces zero emissions. It also works now and we're never going to run out of uranium. It's literally perfect. Uranium is basically unlimited because of how massive the deposits are. As well as that, even normal sea water can be decanted and its uranium stripped. We'll run out of Neodymium and Tellurium much quicker than Uranium.

Any argument against nuclear is an argument against having any nuclear at all. I don't understand the bit of this, bit of that argument. If you're happy enough with nuclear, is there a genuine argument for having anything BUT nuclear? What is the virtue of nuclear and solar panels when you can just have nuclear? Especially when we still haven't figured out a way to actually recycle solar cells, they're being dumped in Ghana mostly having never produced a single KWh of energy above their production investment.

I'm a pescetarian so we agree on the agriculture side, it's inherently wasteful and there is a lot of low hanging fruit there. And my fellow millennials are also guilty of a lot of damage here with a taste for avocados and almond milk.

Synode

What do they do with the nuclear waste. Are they still storing it underground?

irishbucsfan

Why would I get two baskets when there's one PERFECTLY GOOD basket over there?

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why would I get two baskets when there's one PERFECTLY GOOD basket over there?

Hmm.

Synode wrote: »

What do they do with the nuclear waste. Are they still storing it underground?

The average western human produces around 5kg of high level nuclear waste in their entire lifetime if 100% of their energy was generated by nuclear power. Much of that can be reprocessed and fast neutron reactors (the next generation of nuclear power) produces far less waste.

To answer your question, yes. It's still stored underground and there are a few deep, geological reservoirs currently being built.

Think of it another way, all forms of energy inherently consume mass to produce energy and waste. Solar and wind do this indirectly by the huge amount of rare materials required in their construction.

Coal spits out CO2, Nitrous Oxide and heavy metals into the air and into our lungs. Nuclear waste spits out radioactive waste that we can put in a box and bury.

I find it funny that a lot of people think CCS is the way forward which is basically trying to copy the nuclear strategy of burying waste.

Neil3030

troyzer wrote: »

Hmm.



The average western human produces around 5kg of high level nuclear waste in their entire lifetime if 100% of their energy was generated by nuclear power. Much of that can be reprocessed and fast neutron reactors (the next generation of nuclear power) produces far less waste.

To answer your question, yes. It's still stored underground and there are a few deep, geological reservoirs currently being built.

Think of it another way, all forms of energy inherently consume mass to produce energy and waste. Solar and wind do this indirectly by the huge amount of rare materials required in their construction.

Coal spits out CO2, Nitrous Oxide and heavy metals into the air and into our lungs. Nuclear waste spits out radioactive waste that we can put in a box and bury.

I find it funny that a lot of people think CCS is the way forward which is basically trying to copy the nuclear strategy of burying waste.

If you're applying that cost to renewables then you have to do the same with the huge 'capital' outlay of emissions required to construct nuclear plants.

irishbucsfan

Where would we source uranium from? We don't mine it here do we?

troyzer

Constructing nuclear power plants gives you a net gain though, solar panels don't. They require enormous amounts of energy to build, they last 20-30 years and never break even and then they're dumped in Ghana.

We don't mine uranium in Ireland but there are showings up in Donegal. It wouldn't matter, there really is no shortage of uranium.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

We don't mine uranium in Ireland but there are showings up in Donegal. It wouldn't matter, there really is no shortage of uranium.

There is no shortage in the current geopolitical climate. It would be incredibly short-sighted to assume that will always be the case

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is no shortage in the current geopolitical climate. It would be incredibly short-sighted to assume that will always be the case

This is an area I work in, there really isn't a shortage. Uranium is similar to other commodities like potash where we are aware of supergiant deposits that can never be mined properly because they'd destroy the market. But we know they're there.

And like I said, extracting uranium from seawater is already possible.

If your point was more about the strategic reliance on imports, well that's no different to any other energy source.

Rigor Mortis

Neil3030 wrote: »

If you're applying that cost to renewables then you have to do the same with the huge 'capital' outlay of emissions required to construct nuclear plants.

The biggest cost of nuclear is decommissioning. The best proof that nuclear is a dud technology is the move away by its biggest supporter France.