301–310 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trade-off: Humanity as a species ends. Which gadget do you feel is worth that?
Humanity as a species is going to end no matter what we do. Or do you have a solution for the heat death of the universe?
The other problem with our worlds is that our economies are ponzi schemes that can't grow forever. To keep our economies viable we need to increase our production by few % every year. While 1-4% does not seem too much, in reality for economies at current scales this is enormous amount of stuff that needs to be produced just to support our current employment rates. To support that increase we need more energy, and since that energy comes at a higher and higher cost (environmentally, economically and energetically) we need to add more generation capabilities every year.
This broken system needs to be changed, not because it's unfair, wasteful, and plain stupid but simply because it's physically impossible to grow at a 3% rate forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most renewables are not reliable power sources, the wind blows when it blows. That is why a diverse power strategy is needed, including nuclear. When you say the amount subsidised, what is your source, and what do you mean by 'more'? Do you mean more in total, or per kwh generated?
The subsidy per KWh from Hinkley Point C is roughly equal to to the current market rate for electricity because of the guaranteed price needed to build the plant, so the electricity effectively costs twice as much. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/13/hinkley-poin... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/13/hinkley-point...
That's madness. The same madness, IMHO, inherent to most 'targeted' energy generation subsidies. Although, it's a little hilarious that they've managed to get themselves into a situation where their own subsidies will be competing with one another (i.e. subsidising some other non-nuclear generator will reduce wholesale electricity prices, forcing them to pay out more because of their guaranteed 'strike-price' for Hinkley).
However, just reading that Guardian article, there's some pretty questionable thinking going on at the NOA if their quoted statements are representative:
Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar. The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established,” according to the report, titled Nuclear Power in the UK.
I don't understand this fixation on short-term costs (and yes I do understand that money has a time-value). Given climate change is a long-term problem, and we're probably going to be generating electricity well into the future, why are short-term costs in any way relevant? Also, despite being depressingly common, weasel phrases like 'the cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening' really have no place in a government report on a matter of this importance. Is the financial case presently stronger or weaker for nuclear? And which option maximises net social welfare? Those are the only relevant questions in my mind.
“The decision to proceed with support for nuclear power therefore relies more on strategic than financial grounds: nuclear power is needed in the supply mix to complement the intermittent nature of wind and solar,” it added.
Meaning it is a financial issue? No matter how you choose to solve the intermittancy problem, they all cost money. Very sizeable amounts of money. Pumped-hydro plants and HVDC lines don't exactly grow on trees.
I don't understand why more isn't done to implement large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. There are quite well-understood and proven technologies to do this, but they don't seem to be on anybody's agenda. Trying to bring down CO2 concentration by convincing people to give up cars, food and planes is obviously a losing strategy. If we're serious about preventing climate change we're going to have to act…
Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.
But there are also technologies in development that can remove about a thousand times as much CO2 from the air as trees, for a given land area.
This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this? Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choice…
What's the alternative? As an EU company, if I need to do business in the US then I can't say "let's schedule a meeting in a year while I go on a boat cruise". Virtual meetings only work to an extent -- they lack a human interaction touch. I suppose I can take a train if I go on holiday somewhere in the EU, but insane prices for international trains as well as other shenanigans are not making it an attractive choice.
The alternative is that you make do, because this is a serious situation, far more serious than a business deal.
Ironically, your future income and the income and quality of your children's lives will be directly affected by your actions today. But, people just put it away in their minds, file it under "well, can't possibly do that" and forget about it.
If the worst that can happen is some scary figures pop out of the news now and again, what's the point in changing?
We will all look back in ten years and say, we had a chance to do something, but we didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but also releasing it through the death of trees and through the soil. Trees can temporarily capture carbon, but ultimately it will be released again unless they are burned. They also take up a lot of space. [EDIT] I should probably clarify that I have nothing agains…
> Unless they are burned Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?
The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…
Unless we're speaking about things that literally are extinction events for us, the larger organism doesn't really care about extremely short term fluctuations; in the scale of a few hundred million years the current climate change (or the temporary existence of homo sapiens) doesn't make a meaningful impact.
This is very simple, but something most of the HN people won't be able to do. STOP FLYING! Passenger numbers have gone up in a step change with CO2 count over the last 50 years, contrails compound the effect. The sad thing is - you will all look at this message and think. Why should I have to change? Why me, surely someone else must fix this? Don't wait for governments, don't wait for industry. Make individual choice…
If the current state of security screening and customer service hasn't changed people's behaviour, not much will. Unfortunately, for a lot of people there are no viable alternatives.
NASA scientists wrote the first article on effects of CO2 on the climate in 1981 [1]. We are in year 36 after this, and people like the president of the United States are still denying that it exists. [1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless they are burned Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?
He's probably referring to biochar. Turning biomass into charcoal, grinding it into powder, and working it into soil is known to sequester carbon for at least a thousand years.