Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 252 posts

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#131

Post by addicted »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

We've had this discussion before, but nuclear is already more expensive than renewables, and getting more expensive. Renewables are getting cheaper.

In addition, nuclear takes longer to setup, and the most feasible solutions being considered that are supposed to solve nuclear's current problems are all in the prototype stage at best.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#132

Post by brc »

akamaka wrote: post #90
ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

If we can go mostly electric for our transportation, as you suggest, that means we have cheap and plentiful battery storage. If we can easily store power, there's not much advantage for using nuclear power over wind and solar.

Not necessarily true. Liquid fuels are used for transportation but only for niche generation, because they have higher costs, both in capital equipment and in fuel cost.

Likewise, battery cost for transport can make it attractive, but that doesn't necessarily make it better for stationary generation. Scale beats everything when it comes to generation.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#133

Post by epistasis »

illegalsmile wrote: post #123
lucisferre wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This plan seems to ignore the growth curves of renewables. By the time any nuclear power expansion plan gets into place exponential growth in photovoltaics and other renewable technologies will have taken over. Nuclear power would have been a great idea, if we had started at least 10 or 20 years ago. It is unfortunate "environmentalists" did such a disservice to the environment, but we're long past the point of Nucle…

Doubtful that will be anytime soon and we'll most likely always need some sort of baseline power system that's not a from a renewable source.

That ignores the price curve of batteries. Right now, wholesale prices for lithium ion batteries are $150/kWh of capacity, which translates roughly to $0.15/kWh of stored energy. This is less than the price swing in spot prices for energy currently, so we'll start seeing this market expand drastically.

And as electric car batteries lose capacity and need to be replaced, those batteries will still have plenty of storage left for use at home or on the grid.

When batteries get down to $75-$100/kWh capacity, storage will be able to take over much more of the grid. And there are lots of promising flow batteries that can beat lithium ion on price, when it comes to grid-level storage.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#134

Post by threeseed »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #73
vectorjohn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and wind work fine at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although batteries that can run a house overnight aren't that expensive.

If we went fully "renewable" how much industrial waste would these batteries that everyone needs create? Solar and Wind really doesnt work for everyone, where it is cost effective, available and reliable it makes sense to mix them in, but you cant tell me you fully expect every country to go 100% Solar and Wind?

The industrial waste caused by solar/wind would pale in comparison to the existing waste being generated by electric cars and mobile phones.

And of course you can't expect every country to go fully solar/wind. What you need are integrated, continent wide power grids and alternative energy storage mechanisms like molten sands etc.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#135

Post by gus_massa »

vectorjohn wrote: post #54
pfarnsworth wrote: post #35

There is a 10F difference in temperature between my upstairs and downstairs without any heat turned on. There is a 4F difference in temperature between the front of the house and the back of my house. There are so many factors as to how temperature is calculated, how exactly can we take a temperature today and compare it to values from years ago? I'll buy that satellite imaging will produce values that are useful ove…

Do you think people have systematically moved the locations of thermometers to warmer places? There's a thing called averages, medians, and other statistics that can remove or put error bars on that kind of uncertainty.

[Not the op] I neither think that someone moved a thermometer to a warmer place. The problem is that some weather stations were originally placed outside a city many years ago, but the city grow until the weather station is surrounded by the city. Cities are 2°F or 3°F warmer than the countryside, so this creates a fake temperature. Obviously, this changes are not ignored, so the temperature tables have corrections for this kind of problems.

Some of the weather stations were moved the countryside, to avoid the problem or because the office they were placed was relocated. So when the place changes, it necessary to adjust the temperature tables to compensate any differences between the locations.

So, there are a lot of corrections that have to be calculated correctly to have reliable temperature values.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#136

Post by nonbel »

kanamekun wrote: post #63
josu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One cold morning, with a very clear sky, no clouds in sight, I overheard two old ladies discussing how when they were young the sky was bluer, they both agreed. This was in Salamanca, Spain, not Beijing, so no smog to account for.

Aging can cause a decrease in retain sensitivity: "Cells in the retina that are responsible for normal color vision decline in sensitivity as we age, causing colors to become less bright and the contrast between different colors to be less noticeable. ... In particular, blue colors may appear faded or "washed out." While there is no treatment for this normal, age-related loss of color perception, you should be aware…

Is it possible Avogadro's number is actually not a constant?

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#138

Post by galactical »

What's a good book for someone who wants to know more about climate change? I recently bought the most scientific, written by scientists book I could find on Amazon, and the gist of the book is that any amount of warming that is happening is due to geologic cycles and not human activity. The consensus here seems to be that it is due to human activity, so if that's the case can you point me to a good explanation of what's happening? I'm not biased either way, I just want to know the truth according to science, which seems to be really hard to find for some reason.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#139

Post by Brakenshire »

sago wrote: post #64

So next year, when there's a modest decrease in global temperature (as per regression to the mean, even if the mean is monotonically increasing), the climate skeptics will be out in force with their 'I told you so - it goes up and down'. Such a huge record seems like good news for climate change deniers, just deferred.

That's what happens when you combine people who have fixed ideas, with noisy data. As you say, once this spike subsides (pushed higher by El Nino), we'll probably have another 5-10 years of people talking about the next global warming pause. Meanwhile the baseline carries on creeping up.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#140

Post by brc »

epistasis wrote: post #71
vectorjohn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and wind work fine at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although batteries that can run a house overnight aren't that expensive.

Given nuclear's huge expense, huge lead times, and intense local political opposition, and comparing it to how battery&renewable is getting much cheaper with time, I don't doubt that battery&renewable will be cheaper at scale than nuclear power will be by the time that either could be built out.

The expense and lead times and nimby-ism which cripples nuclear are mostly regulatory.

If you apply the same constraints to wind generation (which is increasingly happening) it looks even worse than nuclear.

Post reply on HN