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

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#471

Post by [deleted] »

jbattle wrote: post #355
PeterisP wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd obviously need to involve the first world countries for a meaningful impact on consumption. Please name a single first world nation-state that would be either submerged under water or have their population decimated (i.e. an expected casualty rate of 10%). I believe that even Netherlands would stay above water by continued investment and extension of their current water control practices. For the first world, a…

Do you really think the first world it going to just stand by and watch 100's of millions of people in places like Bangladesh just die? No - the little bit of upset the west is feeling absorbing Syrian refugees should be a wake-up call that we can't just wall ourselves off from other peoples' problems.

[deleted]

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#472

Post by BearGoesChirp »

harwoodleon wrote: post #305
FooBarWidget wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I told you, you are symptomatic of the short-termist attitude that persists - we must carry on whatever the cost. 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 "w…

You make the sacrifices, you go out of business and are replaced by someone who doesn't who will continue flying. If anything you have only made the situation worse for you.

It is a prisoner dilemma of the grandest scale that has origins predating multi-cellular organisms.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#473

Post by antisthenes »

harwoodleon wrote: post #308
biofox wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's an addiction, like smoking. Except far far more damaging to all life.

Not even nearly as bad as long commutes and having to drive everywhere, thanks to poor infrastructure decisions made by the US in the 50s and 60s.

But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them.

A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions, but you nonchalantly relegated it to the realm of "fake facts". Your fanaticism is helping no one here.

Regardless, both flying and personal automobiles powered by fossil fuels are a luxury that will soon be done away with, regardless of your appeals to conscience. Fuel will simply become too expensive (as we run out or introduce a carbon tax).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#474

Post by harwoodleon »

antisthenes wrote: post #473
harwoodleon wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an addiction, like smoking. Except far far more damaging to all life.

Not even nearly as bad as long commutes and having to drive everywhere, thanks to poor infrastructure decisions made by the US in the 50s and 60s. But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them. A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions,…

Those aren't fake facts. They are facts. I don't really dispute their legitimacy, they could be absolutely correct and I could be wrong. It's my own view, you don't have to hold it for me.

However, this is not either or, which fact is correct or not, this is a sum game. We all add to the problem.

Have those facts true or not, helped in any way to reduce the carbon output. 2-3% might seem insignificant - it may be the 2-3% that tips us into a runaway climate.

So, move near to your family, help save 2-3% per year. I did.

Anyway, making yourself feel better by arguing with me, proving me wrong won't alter the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Stopping flying will. You have a choice.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#475

Post by jacquesm »

eru wrote: post #470
jacquesm wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vehicles are increasingly powered by coal plants. Electric batteries don't power anything, they're best compared to empty buckets.

Do you know if anybody ran the numbers? Centralized coal plants might still be more efficient than micro-petrol plants in every car?

It would certainly be an interesting thing to know. Back of the envelope for ICE is ~20% from tank to wheels, From coal plant to wheels of an electric vehicle you'd be looking at line losses first, then AC/DC conversion losses (5% or so) in the charger, battery loss during charging (Ri of the battery comes in to play both ways), again during discharging and then probably a better figure for the drivetrain of an electric car versus an ICE based car because it is much simpler, but the motor would still lose some energy to heat due to its internal resistance (another 3% or so).

Thermal efficiency for a coal plant is ~35% give or take (depending on how new the plant is) so that would be your starting point.

Charge/discharge losses for a large (20KWh) pack that I used were around 25%, a modern EV might do a bit better but probably not that much better (because the internal resistance of those cells they use is quite high).

Putting all that together:

    .33 * .75 * .95 * .97 = ~22%, and ~24% for a high 
    efficiency coal plant.
With line losses un-accounted for because they vary very much depending on the location of the plant and the consumer.

So it's actually pretty close, better than I expected.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#476

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kamaal wrote: post #409
everyone wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun is hotter now than it was at the PT event. There are serious climate scientists saying that, its possible that a greenhouse effect similar to the PT event happening now, could push earth into a Venus like state.

One thing to note is the PT event took several million years to unfold. I think human civilization has bigger problems in the mean time.

Um, human-generated CO2-caused warming might well happen a lot faster than the PT event.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#477

Post by AnimalMuppet »

harwoodleon wrote: post #460
nkurz wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I trust the numbers, but it looks like airplanes produce about 1.5% of the total global "CO2 equivalent" GHG emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... says that transport is 14% of total global GHG emissions. And http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html says that airplanes are 12% of transport emissions.

I certainly don't trust the numbers. There is common sense right? If we stick water vapour and co2 above the weather layer in the atmosphere, it will act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse? Right? You can't rain anything down from 35000ft can you? Look at the warming graphs/animations, most warming happens in the northern hemisphere (where most planes fly), since about 1970, which is when air travel became popular…

So you don't trust the numbers? And you say don't reply with fact-based rebuttals? You seem to be saying that your opinion is fact-free. That's... not very persuasive to the rest of us.

I'm more likely to trust the numbers than someone who says "don't reply with facts". Yes, there is common sense; numbers can be misleading. But common sense can also be misleading; don't cling to it against all evidence.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#478

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Eridrus wrote: post #344
d_theorist wrote: post #232

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…

My understanding was that they were expensive and without a price on carbon, no one has an incentive to do it. You don't actually even need to get it out of the atmosphere, you can retrofit power plants with carbon capture tech that is more efficient, but still, there is no incentive.

The best incentive is to come up with something of value that can be done with that carbon. Then it becomes "money I could grab" instead of "pollution I should not be releasing".

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#479

Post by AnimalMuppet »

DennisP wrote: post #304
mikelyons wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.

Trees would be great. Right now we're deforesting at massive scale. So first we have to stop doing that, then maybe we can reforest and pull down some carbon, and preserve some biodiversity while we're at it. We probably have to get this done soon, because drought, heat stress, disease, and forest fires are starting to turn some forests into net carbon emitters. But there are also technologies in development that can…

> 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.

Could you be more specific?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#480

Post by undersuit »

jacquesm wrote: post #475
eru wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know if anybody ran the numbers? Centralized coal plants might still be more efficient than micro-petrol plants in every car?

It would certainly be an interesting thing to know. Back of the envelope for ICE is ~20% from tank to wheels, From coal plant to wheels of an electric vehicle you'd be looking at line losses first, then AC/DC conversion losses (5% or so) in the charger, battery loss during charging (Ri of the battery comes in to play both ways), again during discharging and then probably a better figure for the drivetrain of an elect…

Would you like to run some more numbers? You only did 'tank to wheels', I'd like to see oil deposit to wheels and the similar calculations for coal deposit to wheels.
Post reply on HN