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

How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#91

Post by imtringued »

wisty wrote: post #23
pbreit wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.

It's been argued that a hose pipe, a helium balloon, and a bit of sulphur could easily cool the planet as much as we want. 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…

No it's closer to letting your child become a slasher because the hospital can just fix the victims up.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#92

Post by perfunctory »

pbreit wrote: post #75
GuiA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+8c means the end of life on Earth as we know it. Maybe rich San Francisco VCs can live in underground bunkers with labor slaves fed on soylent tending to their hydroponically grown crops, but 99.9% of Earth’s population will be (quite literally) toast. “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. http://globalwarming.b…

Wouldn't civilization move further towards colder climates before the end? Is the feedback loop to get hotter or colder?

Depends how fast it happens. And it looks like it's happening very fast in geological terms. You can't move the whole New York north overnight.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#93

Post by MayeulC »

> Some industrial processes can’t easily be electrified because they require too much heat [...] We also might be able to get the heat using hydrogen fuels, which can be made using clean electricity

I don't quite get it, as this ends up electrifying the production process. Unless he talks about directly heating with electricity (induction?). I was under the impression that there was no real limit to electric heating (induction, microwave, etc.). Of course, a complex hydrogen production plant shipping hydrogen to the factories could end up being much cheaper than installing microwave heaters, I guess.

> Carbon capture

At the very least, I'd like to see those processed if they can't be eliminated or sequestrated. Run the exhaust trough some algae containers, and transform the resulting biomass into biofuels. At least, that would lessen the carbon impact due to burning those fuels.

Taking the idea to its limits to judge the impact: If every factory was to do this, if we take current emissions as (24% agriculture, 25% electricity, 21% manufacturing, 14% transportation) [1] we would in theory be able to fully supply transportation with biofuels, cutting it entirely. Do the same with electricity, and you can remove as much emissions as the entire "manufacturing" budget, so 21%. Not that bad. In parallel, you can continue cleaning up electricity generation, and replacing carbon-intensive manufacturing processes with electricity-based ones.

Actually, there is no reason why this couldn't be almost a closed-loop system: Hydrocarbons burned in Manufacturing -> CO2 -> Capture + Algae + processing -> Biofuels (Hydrocarbons)

The energy input ends up being solar energy (or equivalent) necessary for photosynthesis. Algae could also be replaced by chemical processes that take electricity as an input.

This could be expensive to install, but the fuel could be an extra source of revenue as well (or savings, if closed-loop). That's also why we need the right incentives (carbon tax?) There are multiple research projects being conducted in this area [2]

[1]: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/We-should-discuss-soil-as-...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Carbon_dioxide

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#94

Post by novalis78 »

pbreit wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion: adaptation is best (only?) solution.

At some point we have to realize that neither this planet nor the universe cares much about the human species. There is no compassion built into the material universe. Living off the land - in a bigger context - means learning how to live in self-sustaining biospheres on but in particular off planet. Part of the exercises of having a smaller footprint is conducive to this end - while other self-mutilating and progress restricting suggestions are contra-productive and regressive. I am sure reason will prevail and we’ll strike the right balance.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#96

Post by roenxi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #68
godelski wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to break in here because that's a large range in prices. To explain those, they are because the different amounts of storage capacity. These very drastically in location. So somewhere like SoCal needs less than in the Bay area because SoCal is almost always sunny and windy. The Bay has plenty of shady days (go talk to the people at LLNL, there's plenty of people there working on this problem). Alternative…

> No pro nuclear person is anti-renewable. I've seen plenty of anti-renewable and pro-nuclear (and often pro-fossil fuel, from the same source) advocacy from people in the US Right. It is simply false to say “no pro-nuclear person is anti-renewable.” It is accurate to say that some pro-nuclear people are also pro-renewable. > It's not a VS game When it comes to resource allocation, it absolutely is. There aren't infi…

> When it comes to resource allocation, it absolutely is. There aren't infinite resources to allocate.

The pro nuclear people want to allocate resources away from fossil fuels. The pro renewables want to allocate away from fossil fuels.

Nobody has run the numbers on how much environmental damage renewables do. Given the sheer orders of magnitude involved in nuclear power, I'd bet it turns out to be more environmentally friendly even after waste is considered. It would certainly be competitive; we actually try to rehabilitate nuclear plants. Solar panels just get dumped afaik.

The pro nuclear types are just more scientific about how to get to the goal than the wind-and-solar-or-coal-before-nuclear types.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#97

Post by grive »

ddxxdd wrote: post #74
GuiA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+8c means the end of life on Earth as we know it. Maybe rich San Francisco VCs can live in underground bunkers with labor slaves fed on soylent tending to their hydroponically grown crops, but 99.9% of Earth’s population will be (quite literally) toast. “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. http://globalwarming.b…

On the other hand, if the economy grows at 3% per year, then humanity will be 12 times richer by 2100 than if the economy slows down to 2% growth due to heavy government interference. Compounding interest and economic growth has been the primary driving force for lifting people out of poverty, and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale. There i…

This is asinine, there is no "other hand" here. At +8C, most of humanity is dead. You can be "12 times richer", it won't save you or anyone else.

> and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale.

This is fantasy. The elites having captured that much wealth will never give it up for free. Populations will have to take it from their dead hands, which is very costly.

Rest assured: if the status quo is not moved, there will be violent uprising from people feeling the heat (figuratively: it will be water wars and famines). The economies will tank then, with or without mitigation in place.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#98

Post by mac01021 »

einpoklum wrote: post #63
bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

My climate change plan is simple: a ratcheting carbon fee with dividend[1], together with a carbon tariff as part of a climate club[2] The industries where it's easy will take the easy way to avoid the carbon fee. The industries where it's hard will pay the fee but will see the ratchet coming and will be furiously researching alternatives. Worse come to worse, at some point the fee will be more than sequestration cos…

"Fee"? "Dividend"? That's not a plan to stop and reverse climate change, that's a plan for financiers and capitalists to trade in the blame for continuing climate change. No no, emissions need to be cut - for real. There need to be schedules and (tax-based) funding to help make this happen. And - an expropriation of intellectual property so that technologies developed to help this happen aren't controlled by any sing…

> that's a plan for financiers and capitalists to trade in the blame for continuing climate change.

Are you confusing fee& dividend with cap&trade?

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#99

Post by mac01021 »

sirmike_ wrote: post #48
bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

My climate change plan is simple: a ratcheting carbon fee with dividend[1], together with a carbon tariff as part of a climate club[2] The industries where it's easy will take the easy way to avoid the carbon fee. The industries where it's hard will pay the fee but will see the ratchet coming and will be furiously researching alternatives. Worse come to worse, at some point the fee will be more than sequestration cos…

No, just no. adding extra taxes will not do anything to solve the climate problem. It will only put first world countries at a disadvantage to 2nd and third world who will continue along using coal and other cheaper forms of energy. Why would I pay more taxes just to have them come back to me? No. Just no!

Technically the oil company or steel importer would be paying the taxes, you would just be paying increased prices for consumer goods and electricity.

And think about it: if I fly across the country on a private jet, or heat my mansion to 80 degrees throughout the new England winter, or build a million cars to sell overseas, I am doing harm to you and your loved ones. I should reimburse you. And that's exactly what this policy is.

Re: How do we cut down on emissions from steel, cement, and plastic?

#100

Post by pharke »

thereisnospork wrote: post #76
garmaine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t something more research will solve. Metals exist in ores as oxides. To get pure metal you have to reduce them, and that oxygen had to go somewhere, bound to something. There is no net zero process that will magic away those pesky atoms.

Eh, its perfectly doable to make those atoms wind up as O2, it is just expensive. All we need to do to solve climate change, today, is accept a drastically lower standard of living. Hence why it isn't happening, (and won't happen until people start dying).

Judging from history, we are perfectly willing to let masses of people suffer and die in the streets rather than give up the luxuries the few can afford. We're already seeing this with increasing inequality, which should really be called decreasing equality since the trend has reversed direction, and we're on track to resume the norm of a small privileged class with a tiny middle class and masses of working and dying poor.
Post reply on HN