21–30 of 129 posts
German steel makers aiming to go carbon neutral by 2050. Hydrogen is an important element in this: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/companies/green-energy-th...
Edit: Downvoted for what exactly?
Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.
But of course, people get mad about "playing god" or "using pollution to fight pollution". Kinda like a bad parent who refuses to ever punish their child, because they're afraid of being responsible if things go wrong (despite them already being responsible for things having gone wrong).
There's also the risk that eventually carbon will acidify the oceans too much, so clearly there's a limit to how much we can have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain more about why they don't make sense? My understanding is that they're extremely desirable. They're a drop-in replacement for millions of hydrocarbon plants. They can scale up/down with demand. They produce enormous amounts of energy and emit no C02. Think of the materials and industrial waste to produce 1 nuclear power plant versus all of the battery, solar cells, and turbines to equal the same in po…
Cost [1]. Time from breaking ground to "permission to operate" as well (even if you cut red tape and systemize manufacturing of nuclear generators, you will not be as fast as wind, solar, and batteries). Solar PV Thin Film Utility Scale: $36-$44/MWh | Onshore Wind: $29-$56/MWh | Nuclear: $112-$189/MWh Can you build nuclear faster than the rest of the world can build and install PV solar and onshore/offshore wind turb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cost [1]. Time from breaking ground to "permission to operate" as well (even if you cut red tape and systemize manufacturing of nuclear generators, you will not be as fast as wind, solar, and batteries). Solar PV Thin Film Utility Scale: $36-$44/MWh | Onshore Wind: $29-$56/MWh | Nuclear: $112-$189/MWh Can you build nuclear faster than the rest of the world can build and install PV solar and onshore/offshore wind turb…
Except that nuclear is running 24/7 even if it is not windy (minus the costly maintenance). As long as we don't have a superconductor grid around whole hemisphere, it seems to be the best way to generate power at night.
If you want to subsidize the last 59 US nuclear plants based on their low CO2 emissions, extending their operating license (if it can be done safely) until cleaner base load arrives, that's a sound decision. Building more nuclear is not. I question if we even have the fortitude to fund safe cleanup of existing decommissioned plants (spent rod casks have been sitting onsite in Zion, IL 19 years after that nuclear generator has been shut down, with nowhere to go [1]).
Batteries will get cheaper faster than nuclear ever will, considering every automaker is moving to electric vehicles [2].
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/resizer/8tYxXLAlIOkm61zbZmVII...
[2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-... (Energy Storage Investments Boom As Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade)
Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.
Adapting to +8C will be a lot more expensive than reducing moderately to hit +4C and adapting to that. And the only way to limit to +4C IMO is to try and limit to +2C and inevitably missing.
“Only” +4 is already going to be a very, very rough situation rife with positive feedback loops that may well make +5, then +6, etc inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your definition of "runaway". If runaway = Venus, then no, there is no adapting to that.
Humans are really good at adapting to new situations; even if climate change causes a massive reduction in population and standard of living, I’m confident that some humans will survive. I don’t know what the solutions will look like, but sci-fi authors have shown us some semi-plausible solutions: domed, climate controlled cities here or elsewhere in the solar system; generation ships that aren’t dependent on any pla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your definition of "runaway". If runaway = Venus, then no, there is no adapting to that.
Humans are really good at adapting to new situations; even if climate change causes a massive reduction in population and standard of living, I’m confident that some humans will survive. I don’t know what the solutions will look like, but sci-fi authors have shown us some semi-plausible solutions: domed, climate controlled cities here or elsewhere in the solar system; generation ships that aren’t dependent on any pla…
Well yes, at our current technology levels ecological and climate based collapse has almost no chance of making humans 100% extinct. But I don't think that anyone is arguing the opposite.
The moral calculus for addressing climate change isn't that affected by differences in the survival rate of 0% vs 5% vs 50%. All of the above would be catastrophically bad in human terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain more about why they don't make sense? My understanding is that they're extremely desirable. They're a drop-in replacement for millions of hydrocarbon plants. They can scale up/down with demand. They produce enormous amounts of energy and emit no C02. Think of the materials and industrial waste to produce 1 nuclear power plant versus all of the battery, solar cells, and turbines to equal the same in po…
Cost [1]. Time from breaking ground to "permission to operate" as well (even if you cut red tape and systemize manufacturing of nuclear generators, you will not be as fast as wind, solar, and batteries). Solar PV Thin Film Utility Scale: $36-$44/MWh | Onshore Wind: $29-$56/MWh | Nuclear: $112-$189/MWh Can you build nuclear faster than the rest of the world can build and install PV solar and onshore/offshore wind turb…
German steel makers aiming to go carbon neutral by 2050. Hydrogen is an important element in this: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/companies/green-energy-th...
Aiming to is a meaningless word. It requires fundamental discoveries we by definition can't know when or if we are going to find. Edit: Downvoted for what exactly?
