A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US • Hacker News Board

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#11

Post by sxates » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

yokaze wrote: post #4

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…

Separate thought related to this--

I've personally made the following investments to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I'm directly emitting -- and these are the sorts of things we'll need millions of people to do in the coming years:

* 6kw of solar panels (no A/C): $22,000 * Powerwall batteries to power house when not sunny: $18,000 * Whole house insulation as part of remodel: $15,000 * Conversion of all kitchen appliances from gas to electric: $5000 * Replace gas water heater with electric heat pump: $3-4000 * Electric car: $30k+ (mine was $50+)

The remaining gas-powered appliance in the house in our furnace, which I'll get to replacing in the next few years (est $15k) - at which point we'll probably also have a second electric car, and need to increase our solar production as well to keep up.

How many people can afford the above list for their homes? In 10 years if the above items cost half what they do now, how many can afford it then? How many landlords are going to make these investments for rental properties?

The transition we face is potentially economically stimulating (there's a lot of stuff to replace!), but also has really high up-front costs (and sunk costs) that will have to be managed. This goes both for national infrastructure all the way down to people's homes.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#12

Post by ForHackernews » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed.

> It takes time to make big shifts like this.

We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough.

> Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people.

That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#13

Post by graycat » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #6

yokaze wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…

To add to this, which I think is entirely correct, it took the effects of spending on arming for WW2 that finally brought the world out of the Great Depression. Unemployment went down and the economy surged. The US New Deal helped but it wasn't nearly enough. Edit: Is this controversial somehow? I thought it pretty standard and well known history.

There's an old remark: "Recession and depression are the easiest things in the world to cure -- just print money.".

The cause of our recessions and depressions was suddenly too little money. That is, a lot of money was destroyed. How? When the banks, etc. got in trouble, the multiplier effect enormously reduced the money supply.

Soooooo, have some new regulations on reserve ratios, etc. for banks and then print the missing money. The new regulations will keep the banks, etc. from using the newly printed money and the multiplier effect to create too much money and inflation.

Many millions of people died before these ideas were accepted.

How to print money? One way is for the Federal Reserve to buy bonds from the US Treasury. Then the Treasury has the money and the Federal Government can spend it, e.g., on roads, bridges, dams, etc. Another way is for the Federal Reserve to loan money to the member banks, and the banks loan the money to people who want to buy houses, cars, commercial buildings, etc.

How did WWII get us out of the Depression? Once people started shooting at us, we were willing to print money for the war. But we printed about the right amount since after the war we didn't have massive inflation.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#14

Post by phil248 » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

newswriter99 wrote: post #7

Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial. Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy i…

The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. We are winning a game that is already over. We can keep patting ourselves on the back for generating and using so many fossil fuels so very well, or we can admit that a new game has started and get our asses on the field to compete.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#15

Post by derp_dee_derp » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #12

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough. > Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term…

> Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve

It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change.

Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#16

Post by nostromo » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #12

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough. > Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term…

CO2 has already dropped by nearly 20% in the US over the past decade naturally, as renewables becoming cheaper and buildings, appliances, and manufacturing becomes more efficient.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133

This is a secular trend that I imagine will continue regardless of what politicians do.

Unfortunately none of the US/EU cuts will matter in the end with the track China is on.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2018/07/Countr...

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#17

Post by wmf » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

sxates wrote: post #11

yokaze wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…

Separate thought related to this-- I've personally made the following investments to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I'm directly emitting -- and these are the sorts of things we'll need millions of people to do in the coming years: * 6kw of solar panels (no A/C): $22,000 * Powerwall batteries to power house when not sunny: $18,000 * Whole house insulation as part of remodel: $15,000 * Conversion of all kitchen a…

Pretty much nobody can afford to do that. At best you could stop selling new gas appliances and gas cars at some point and then wait 20 years for the old ones to naturally fall out of use. But a corollary is that you have to slowly ramp up carbon prices over 20 years.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#18

Post by steve_adams_86 » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

sxates wrote: post #3

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…

> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked…

That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated.

I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money would do wonders in supporting and retraining these works. However, we'd need a very good plan and very good acceptance of it amongst the work force and tax payers. This would all be incredibly expensive. People would resent the retraining because it would cost tax payers to benefit a small subset of people, while less oil production equals higher prices for... Everything. People would be very upset, both workers and citizens.

It's going to be so hard to get people on the same page. I hope the disasters that push us to act aren't too awful.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#19

Post by at-fates-hands » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

Just saw an episode of American Pickers where they at some guys farm going through all of his 1920's era car collection. There was a little side part where they talked about how common electric cars were in the late 1880's and early 1900's before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil.

Made me think about where we could be if we had not made the wholesale switch to gas powered cars and instead focused on building a more cost effective electric car.

Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

#20

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and bring up demands for surge. There's a big reason fossil fuels are still around and it isn't just politicians lining their pockets (not denying this is happening) and big oil conspiracies.

The fact of the matter is we don't have the technology to replace it. Batteries aren't just there yet. Can we wait for them and hope? I'm not convinced considering we needed to start building things decades ago. I'm pro nuclear because of this, because it's the only current technology that can be built anywhere (yes, this is a major issue) and can throttle output. But people are scared of it. It deserves the fear, but what should be scarier is it's basically the safest form of energy we have. But it is also expensive and we can't just pretend that we'll get economies of scale right away.

So what do we do? I think we push out fossil fuels as fast as possible. We heavily invest in battery tech. We minorly relax nuclear regulations to allow us to build newer generation reactors that are safer and hopefully cheaper. We go harder at researching fusion. And most importantly, we dump a lot into sequestration research. I think this is a safe bet, but it is still a bet. It's not a fool proof plan but it diversifies the portfolio and reduces risk of failure. But it'll be costly. Definitely not as expensive as a mass extinction event, but costly. And it is hard to get people to realize costs from an existential crisis.

I mean look at the article. When we talk about climate we still aren't listening to the scientists and are talking past one another. So what do we do?