Climate change changes - Better, but still...

[biochimera]

The changes to climate change were certainly welcome. However unless later techs significantly increase the rate of sustainability accumulation (not just the ceiling, but the rate) it is still very punishing, unless I'm missing something. For example China gets a paltry 0.00015 sustainability points per point in welfare. So 6666.7 welfare points needed to go up one point in sustainability, when China's investment points is 32.5 per month at the start. So 206 months, a bit over 17 years, are needed to go up 1 point in sustainability with 100% welfare investment.

Once again I may be missing something, like welfare points already take out a certain amount of greenhouse gases per point spent, with sustainability decreasing the amount produced, so eventually the two will cross over into net negative. If that is the case though the game doesn't say that.

[FissileUngulate]

If you consider what's being looked at and discussed regarding how hard and long it's going to take us to switch to net-zero, this doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, 2050, 2060 if we are lucky for global level balance... although we likely aren't getting civilian fusion reactors in the same timeframe as the game.

[Belrick]

The only enemy i want to deal with in this game are the Aliens and the factions supporting them
I don't want to have to deal with an Enemy within humanity in real life that pushed a false ... nuclear war fear/global warming fear/population bomb fear/global cooling fear or what ever iteration this game feels the need to faithfully implement

Let us disable these fear weapons

[AylaSelene]

the problem with welfare at the moment is that it reduces both emissions and inequality.

it is getting split up "soon" into welfare and environment.
at that point it will be much easier to balance the rate of climate improvement granted by projects that currently just increase welfare.


as for fighting it... no faction actually has any goals regarding climate change, and the effects are minor enough that you can practically ignore it (by the time it affects your research income that should mostly be in space anyways). the game usually doesn't last long enough for everyone to die to global warming (and if it did they'd likely die to orbital bombardment or nuclear winter first)

[Swat__Raptor]

Originally posted by AylaSelene:

the problem with welfare at the moment is that it reduces both emissions and inequality.

it is getting split up "soon" into welfare and environment.
at that point it will be much easier to balance the rate of climate improvement granted by projects that currently just increase welfare.


as for fighting it... no faction actually has any goals regarding climate change, and the effects are minor enough that you can practically ignore it (by the time it affects your research income that should mostly be in space anyways). the game usually doesn't last long enough for everyone to die to global warming (and if it did they'd likely die to orbital bombardment or nuclear winter first)

They could make a eco friendly pro growth faction.

Goals reduce carbon levels to 370 Ppm
Spread human presence to all or orbital spheres. 50k pop at, Mars, Mercury, Asteroid belt, at each gass giant, and in the outer planets.

Produce a stock pile of anti matter to send generation ships to new stats.

[DevHyfes]

Originally posted by AylaSelene:

the problem with welfare at the moment is that it reduces both emissions and inequality.

Thank god! The idea that making energy more expensive somehow makes inequality lower was always silly. Environmental protections have almost universally been about giving perks to rich people. From the subsidized teslas and solar panels on homeowners' roofs, to the tax credits for billion-dollar companies. Even the whole "Carbon Credit" scheme was largely a mechanism for Rich countries to send money to third world countries with far, far worse wealth redistribution. Indeed, a cynical person would look at a lot of the Kyoto-era climate mitigation measures as much more Spoils than Welfare.

Generally the entire climate change system is just unscientific in general, which is sad considering how this team prides itself on the science.

[Ericus1]

Utility scale renewable energy is across the board cheaper than any other type of power production on a MWh basis. Green energy does not "make energy more expensive", it makes it cheaper - often vastly so.

And no, the climate change system in the game is actually HIGHLY realistic and based on real-world data. You beliefs about it are actually what are largely based on misinformation and untruths.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

And no, the climate change system in the game is actually HIGHLY realistic and based on real-world data.

Well, the effect of the gases and aerosols in the atmosphere on the climate, anyway. The production of those needs work.

[biochimera]

Originally posted by AylaSelene:

the problem with welfare at the moment is that it reduces both emissions and inequality.

it is getting split up "soon" into welfare and environment.
at that point it will be much easier to balance the rate of climate improvement granted by projects that currently just increase welfare.


as for fighting it... no faction actually has any goals regarding climate change, and the effects are minor enough that you can practically ignore it (by the time it affects your research income that should mostly be in space anyways). the game usually doesn't last long enough for everyone to die to global warming (and if it did they'd likely die to orbital bombardment or nuclear winter first)

That would actually be a great change. I kind of hope they do the same with knowledge covering both government and research level. Trying to keep/improve the population growth of some countries while trying to improve their government level is a real pain.

Also, the rate of change is what I'm not too impressed with. From what I've read most games will end before there's any meaningful change in sustainability. And someone else commented climate change isn't a big deal to handle in the game regardless. If that's the case, why have it? I get the realism argument, but this is a game. After all, we're currently not being invaded by aliens. If it's going to be a mechanic, make it meaningful, and make it so the player can have a significant change in the outcome. If that can't be done, then does it really need to exist.

[DevHyfes]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Utility scale renewable energy is across the board cheaper than any other type of power production on a MWh basis. Green energy does not "make energy more expensive", it makes it cheaper - often vastly so.

I know you think you have read this, and it is a real crying shame that people put out this type of information because it severely hampers our transition to renewable energy. In any case, when you get very myopic, you can make the case that given zero input costs, the simple capital cost of a solar farm is cheaper than natural gas- when natural gas is extra expensive.

However, life is not that simple, and solar farms need lots of stuff that cannot be ignored, such as energy storage to cover the times when no solar is running. Yes, when the Solar Farm sells energy, it is cheap. But when it has no energy to sell, well, you gotta get it from somewhere.

In my state, you have the option to switch over to renewable-only energy. It is about 30% more expensive.

Originally posted by Ericus1:

And no, the climate change system in the game is actually HIGHLY realistic and based on real-world data. You beliefs about it are actually what are largely based on misinformation and untruths.

lol, no. The game models a malus to GDP at +1.3C to be -.79%. That is ridiculous. It isn't as ridiculous as the 1.6% that they modeled back when the game came out, but it is still absurd. The WEF estimates that if temperatures are kept below +2C the impact to world GDP over a 25 year period would be 4.2%. That is less than .17% per year. And that is at a temp anomaly 50% higher than modeled in the game.

The game is not accurate at all.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by DevHyfes:

In my state, you have the option to switch over to renewable-only energy. It is about 30% more expensive.

To repeat you, however, this also isn't so simple. The cost to buy is not fully linked to the actual cost to produce because they receive different levels of subsidies.

Also the idea of personally switching to renewable-only is farcical. If they weren't selling to you, specifically, they'd sell it on the open market, because whether you're buying it or not is not the determinant as to whether they're producing it. They will always produce as much as they're currently able to do (accounting for weather conditions for wind and solar), because their operating costs per MWh are much lower than the cost of fossil fuel plants (and so is nuclear), and are insufficient to meet all demand.
At the end of the day, any increase in your personal energy usage is 100% fossil fuels, because those are what need to be turned on to increase generation, since renewables and nuclear will simply provide as much as they're able at all times.

[Ericus1]

Originally posted by DevHyfes:

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Utility scale renewable energy is across the board cheaper than any other type of power production on a MWh basis. Green energy does not "make energy more expensive", it makes it cheaper - often vastly so.

I know you think you have read this, and it is a real crying shame that people put out this type of information because it severely hampers our transition to renewable energy. In any case, when you get very myopic, you can make the case that given zero input costs, the simple capital cost of a solar farm is cheaper than natural gas- when natural gas is extra expensive.

However, life is not that simple, and solar farms need lots of stuff that cannot be ignored, such as energy storage to cover the times when no solar is running. Yes, when the Solar Farm sells energy, it is cheap. But when it has no energy to sell, well, you gotta get it from somewhere.

In my state, you have the option to switch over to renewable-only energy. It is about 30% more expensive.

Originally posted by Ericus1:

And no, the climate change system in the game is actually HIGHLY realistic and based on real-world data. You beliefs about it are actually what are largely based on misinformation and untruths.

lol, no. The game models a malus to GDP at +1.3C to be -.79%. That is ridiculous. It isn't as ridiculous as the 1.6% that they modeled back when the game came out, but it is still absurd. The WEF estimates that if temperatures are kept below +2C the impact to world GDP over a 25 year period would be 4.2%. That is less than .17% per year. And that is at a temp anomaly 50% higher than modeled in the game.

The game is not accurate at all.

Just more anti-renewable misinformation. Pretty standard stuff too. The "we need 100% storage now" claims and that it isn't being built out over time. That we're already at the last 80-90% of penetration where storage is actually required at all. That there isn't already a surplus of legacy fossils that cover needs in almost all markets, and renewables always produce and sell for less while simply displacing fossil production off the grid, mainly coal and now gas at this point. And of course, grotesquely inflating the cost of storage, when renewables + storage are now cheaper than new fossils per MWh.

[DevHyfes]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Just more anti-renewable misinformation. Pretty standard stuff too. The "we need 100% storage now" claims and that it isn't being built out over time.

I note that you didn't bother to, you know, present any data. I pointed out the WEF data and you just scream "misinformation." This makes the transformation to renewables much less desirable because people recognize this flailing when they see it,

Originally posted by Ericus1:

That we're already at the last 80-90% of penetration where storage is actually required at all. That there isn't already a surplus of legacy fossils that cover needs in almost all markets, and renewables always produce and sell for less while simply displacing fossil production off the grid, mainly coal and now gas at this point. And of course, grotesquely inflating the cost of storage, when renewables + storage are now cheaper than new fossils per MWh.

I didn't grossly inflate anything. The fact is that Oahu's shift to a higher renewable mix has brought a 1/3 increase in price ($.31/kWh to $41). The local power authority here lets you buy fully renewable or mixed power. The former carries a 10% premium even after subsidies.

It is perfectly ok to say "You know what, for climate mitigation, we should be paying more for our energy." Just be honest.

[olstar18]

For those trying to explain how renewables aren't more expensive with subsidies. Keep in mind that last bit. With subsidies. If they need subsidies to be economical then yes it is more expensive you just spread the cost over everyone to subsidize the cost.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by olstar18:

For those trying to explain how renewables aren't more expensive with subsidies. Keep in mind that last bit. With subsidies. If they need subsidies to be economical then yes it is more expensive you just spread the cost over everyone to subsidize the cost.

Except how does it compare to fossil fuels without the massive amount of subsidies they also get?

Also, when you include dealing with the externalized costs that fossil fuels take advantage of by dumping it into the atmosphere, how does it compare?

[olstar18]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by olstar18:

For those trying to explain how renewables aren't more expensive with subsidies. Keep in mind that last bit. With subsidies. If they need subsidies to be economical then yes it is more expensive you just spread the cost over everyone to subsidize the cost.

Except how does it compare to fossil fuels without the massive amount of subsidies they also get?

If you say we should get rid of subsidies I agree but you may want to look at how much energy comes from fossil fuels and compare that to how much of the subsidies go to green energy. The subsidy cost for solar electricity is around 38 bucks per megawatt hour while for coal, assuming all subsidies were directed at electric production, it would be for about buck per megawatt hour. Nuclear is something like 50 cents.