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

151–160 of 252 posts

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

#151

Post by einrealist »

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…

Only if you agree, that you move into a unpopulated area, that the nuclear power plants are built in your garden, that everything is paid by you and you also take care of the waste. Thank you.

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

#152

Post by wang_li »

guscost wrote: post #101
nostromo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

> Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. I responded to your claim previously[0]: > In that 200 years a whole lot more uranium will become available for economical extraction, exactly the same as what happened with oil and natural gas. Do you have reason to believe this will not happen? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10623187

> Do you have reason to believe this will not happen?

What's kind of amazing is that people don't believe that we will develop a solar powered technique to extract carbon the from the atmosphere and create liquid fuels.

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

#153

Post by knowaveragejoe »

ekianjo wrote: post #128
moultano wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people making these predictions do not have the power to extract taxes. The people who do have the power to extract taxes (Congress) are ignoring the predictions.

The people making those predictions are PAID by the government.

And? Are you trying to make a case for conflict of interest? Because, time and time again, it's a pretty weak one(unless you want to invoke some global conspiracy involving carbon credits).

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

#154

Post by civilian »

nostromo wrote: post #48
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…

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

This is the same argument that the proponents of peak oil put forth. Discovered uranium deposits != all uranium deposits on earth. When price pressure is put on uranium, we'll have more speculators looking for it. (Which the article addresses.)

Also, Economically unaccessible today != economically unaccessible tomorrow. Our mining technology gets better all the time, especially if there's price pressure on it. We're accessing deep-sea oil deposits that we weren't able to twenty years ago. (Which the article addresses, but you omitted the key point!!! We have a 60,000 year supply of uranium in the oceans!)

The chief problem with coal isn't pitmining, it's the pollution from burning the stuff.

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

#155

Post by brc »

nostromo wrote: post #48
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…

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

Don't fall for the mistake of taking known reserves to be the actual amount in the earths crust.

'Oil is about to run out' predictions have been falling for this for a century now, and continue to make the same error.

There is no economic reason to find resources out beyond a set timeline. So they aren't looking for them, and so the reserves always look like they are going to run out in 30 years.

The actual environmental impact of mines is negligible over the long term, provided the mining is done in a country with good environmental protection in place.

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

#156

Post by civilian »

flubert wrote: post #99
nostromo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've misunderstood my comment. We have 200 years of uranium left at current rates of consumption. But if we replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear, we'd consume 10 times more per year and we'd only have about 20 years of energy available before needing to move on to a new energy source.

Okay, it is wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor "Adherents claim that with seawater uranium extraction, there would be enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy."

Yeah, breeder reactors are even mentioned in the sciam article that nostromo posted. He's cherry-picking his info.

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

#158

Post by drewrv »

galactical wrote: post #138

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 wh…

I'm curious what book you read because it sounds like it does not agree with what almost all scientists believe.

Perhaps you should start with The IPCC Reports.

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

#159

Post by flubert »

orf wrote: post #17

It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this. There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation. Just imagine if Trump did get into office as well...

I don't know if anyone else is like this, but I can't help but be slightly amused, when in the same thread that some people are thinking that this is a lost cause, other's are claiming the the exponential growth of solar and wind power will ensure nuclear's niche status (and which seems to imply that the problem is essentially already solved, we just have to wait a decade or two, "global cooperation" or not).

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

#160

Post by nl »

ekianjo wrote: post #119
moultano wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global population is concentrated near the equator and near the coast, both great conditions for solar and wind.

Paris is a good example of that.

Denmark is a net power exporter, from renewables.
Post reply on HN