The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest • Hacker News Board

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#71

Post by twic » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 12:57 PM UTC

> To add insult to injury, the coal that is extracted here is brown coal, also known as lignite, which emits particularly high levels of carbon dioxide.

This surprised me, because surely you get one molecule of CO2 per atom of carbon in the coal, regardless of the kind of coal. But it seems there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my stoichiometry - lignite has a higher moisture content than other coals, so more of the energy liberated goes into boiling that water, so there is less energy produced per unit of carbon, which means more CO2 per unit of energy:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008100...

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#72

Post by brazzy » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #4

jfk13 wrote: post #2

The scale of the scars on the earth here is pretty staggering: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hambach+Forest/@50.89999...

Impressive, aren't they? The industrial muscle keeping people warm and happy. I assume Germany has a modern program of mine rehabilitation, so you're only able to see the parts that are currently part of the active mine. The historic mine footprint of an old mine is probably twice or thrice what is visible; much larger but invisible from satellite because it has been rehabilitated. Eg, the area just north-west of Tag…

Nice guessing, but nope. Old earth movements of that scale are anything but invisible on satellite pictures.

Here's a map that shows the area before mining began in 1978: https://www.bund-nrw.de/fileadmin/nrw/bilder/Braunkohle/1975...

So the rehabilitation area is in fact only the very prominent forest directly to the northwest of the active mining, a third to half its size rather than twice or thrice.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#73

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #71

> To add insult to injury, the coal that is extracted here is brown coal, also known as lignite, which emits particularly high levels of carbon dioxide. This surprised me, because surely you get one molecule of CO2 per atom of carbon in the coal, regardless of the kind of coal. But it seems there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my stoichiometry - lignite has a higher moisture content than ot…

Huh I would have guesses that the difference was in hydrocarbons themselves - the opposite of how Methane is peak hydrocarbon efficency by having four hydrogen bonds per carbon - if it has less energy/carbon dense configurations resulting in more CO2 than even other coals because it was made up of more wasteful structures like "rings" of carbons.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#74

Post by someguydave » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #67

Grue3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case of Germany, it's anti-science anti-nuclear "environmentalists" that are destroying it. Energy is needed regardless of the economic structure of society. Now which kind of energy will it be? Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences.

Nuclear was always less than 15% of Germany's primary power consumption. Renewables something like 5%. We need to get to 100% carbon neutral. Whether we have to replace 80 or 100% with wind and solar shouldn't make that much of a difference.

Nuclear fission is the only non-carbon technology that could realistically get to 100% supply. Ending its generation in Germany was a mistake.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#75

Post by KozmoNau7 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #71

> To add insult to injury, the coal that is extracted here is brown coal, also known as lignite, which emits particularly high levels of carbon dioxide. This surprised me, because surely you get one molecule of CO2 per atom of carbon in the coal, regardless of the kind of coal. But it seems there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my stoichiometry - lignite has a higher moisture content than ot…

Lignite is more accurately described as "slightly more flammable dirt". It is an absolute outrage that we still burn it for energy.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#76

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #42

ganesh7 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context the ecocide caused by the construction of windturbines is especially alarming

Do you mean the death of birds due to wind turbines? As best as I can tell, that is dwarfed by the birds killed by domesticated animals.

Or to apples to apples it killed by coal for that matter. It is a bizzare mental blindspot that people never ask that question - but birds always seem to come up mainly as NIMBY pretexts anyway.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#77

Post by KozmoNau7 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:17 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #14

ntzm wrote: post #7

[flagged]

[flagged]

~20 million people die every year, because it is not profitable to feed them, and give them clean water and medicine.

So please think about that number. Deaths solely due to a lack of profitability.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#78

Post by adrianN » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:18 PM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #74

adrianN wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was always less than 15% of Germany's primary power consumption. Renewables something like 5%. We need to get to 100% carbon neutral. Whether we have to replace 80 or 100% with wind and solar shouldn't make that much of a difference.

Nuclear fission is the only non-carbon technology that could realistically get to 100% supply. Ending its generation in Germany was a mistake.

I agree that it was a mistake, but there are several studies showing how Germany can switch to ~100% wind+solar.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#79

Post by someguydave » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:19 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #16

lake99 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the German protesters are proposing as an alternative? Germany banned nuclear, brown lignite is bad, extensive mining destroys forests, wind power destroys forests and is bad for birds, Germany is not a good candidate for solar, and so on. So what's next?

They believe in a fairy tale of green energy without any side effects. I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. The irony is that they blame their parents, whose generation protested against nuclear power. Presumably the only alternative that would have stood a chance to reduce climate change.

Indeed, nuclear fission is the only viable known technology to bring the world a first-world level of available energy. It’s too bad that ignorance and fear keeps it off the table.

Re: The coal mine that ate Hambacher forest

#80

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

novalis78 wrote: post #40

titzer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's people and exponential growth. Doesn't matter what -ism you put on the end of your shovels.

That’s quite the Malthusian viewpoint. Alternatively: “Malthus theory, which holds that since the world’s resources are more or less fixed, population growth must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery. Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt — all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development…

Really the two are in feedback loops that may correlate and require certain strategization and working smarter instead of harder. Improved agricultural yields produce surplus food per person which allows a shift to industrialization which enables more secondary tertiary areas of specialization which can boost yields and give other benefits.

This dates back to the bronze age even and technically stone age in mesoamerican and neighboring southern native american cultures.