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

121–129 of 129 posts

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

#121

Post by einpoklum »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #107
einpoklum wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It could also be called a "Carbon Tax & Benefit". But instead we use right-friendly words for a very left-friendly plan.

You can take from the rich and give to the poor all day long - but that in itself doesn't reduce emissions. The rich will pay some taxes, or more probably, evade them, offshore stuff etc, and emissions will continue.

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

#122

Post by einpoklum »

mac01021 wrote: post #98
einpoklum wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

No, but also kind of yes. That is, if there's a carbon task, the financial system may very well distribute its load among many people (perhaps even indirectly onto regular people through their retirement benefits or what-not). If the plan does not absolute positively require emission reduction, period, then it's not good enough.

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

#123

Post by ThomPete »

jacobush wrote: post #120
ThomPete wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think we do most modern operations and healthcare, how do you think we manage to have cars be extremely lightweight and i could go on.

Fine, but are these unaccounted positive externalities? Don't you choose plastic exactly because you want its nice properties? But looking back the next day I think I may have over-reacted a bit to your comment. Of course plastic is in many ways very nice. Let's keep a fair subset. But we could benefit from paring down the variations, and the volume, a lot, IMHO.

It's not just nice it's crucial for our survival. Keep in mind plastic can be as soft as velvet and as durable and hard as diamonds. No other material does that and that allow us to make things that would be impossible otherwise. We simply have no alternatives to them yet.

The unaccounted externalities are that fossil fuel and thus ex. plastic makes modern life possible with everything from increased age, to the ability to cure the sick, to lowered childbirth, to increased living standards, food production, cleaner environments and so on.

Of course there are negative externalities too and we need to deal with them but all in all plastics and thus fossil fuels improve our lives tremendously IMO.

Ironically the problem the modern society is facing is how to deal with abundance rather than scarcity.

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

#124

Post by jacobush »

ThomPete wrote: post #123
jacobush wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, but are these unaccounted positive externalities? Don't you choose plastic exactly because you want its nice properties? But looking back the next day I think I may have over-reacted a bit to your comment. Of course plastic is in many ways very nice. Let's keep a fair subset. But we could benefit from paring down the variations, and the volume, a lot, IMHO.

It's not just nice it's crucial for our survival. Keep in mind plastic can be as soft as velvet and as durable and hard as diamonds. No other material does that and that allow us to make things that would be impossible otherwise. We simply have no alternatives to them yet. The unaccounted externalities are that fossil fuel and thus ex. plastic makes modern life possible with everything from increased age, to the abil…

Now I really feel like a strawman argument is going on.

Do you believe I advocate remove all plastic?

Do you advocate keeping all plastic? None of the plastic can be replaced with other materials or designed away altogether?!

I hope you are not, because that is ludicrous.

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

#125

Post by bryanlarsen »

einpoklum wrote: post #121
bryanlarsen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It could also be called a "Carbon Tax & Benefit". But instead we use right-friendly words for a very left-friendly plan.

You can take from the rich and give to the poor all day long - but that in itself doesn't reduce emissions. The rich will pay some taxes, or more probably, evade them, offshore stuff etc, and emissions will continue.

The rich can hide money, but it's a lot harder for them to hide consumption, and the carbon tax is a consumption tax.

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

#126

Post by ThomPete »

jacobush wrote: post #124
ThomPete wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just nice it's crucial for our survival. Keep in mind plastic can be as soft as velvet and as durable and hard as diamonds. No other material does that and that allow us to make things that would be impossible otherwise. We simply have no alternatives to them yet. The unaccounted externalities are that fossil fuel and thus ex. plastic makes modern life possible with everything from increased age, to the abil…

Now I really feel like a strawman argument is going on. Do you believe I advocate remove all plastic ? Do you advocate keeping all plastic ? None of the plastic can be replaced with other materials or designed away altogether?! I hope you are not, because that is ludicrous.

I don't believe anything about you. I am simply telling you what I consider to be the reality.

Some parts of the plastic industry can and will be replaced but far less both short term and long term than people want to think, unless; some new fundamental scientific discoveries are done.

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

#127

Post by godelski »

qiqitori wrote: post #119
godelski wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is energy density necessary for cheap batteries? So you can put them in cars, boats, planes, and other things. Yeah, I know, we have Teslas. But do you know it's twice the weight of an ICE alternative? Weight matters a lot. While we've made a lot of progress in the last few decades, the best research batteries are still 100x below any fossil fuel in terms of energy density.

Which Tesla is twice the weight of an equivalent ICE car? The Model S (2019) appears to look roughly the same and appears to be roughly the same size as the Audi A7 (2019), and is just a bit heavier (Tesla curb weight 4883 lbs, Audi 4332 lbs). https://www.cars.com/research/compare/?acodes=USC90TSC024F0,...

I was comparing with ranges, sorry should have specified. Equivalent cars with ranges. Though maybe this isn't the best because a model S is a sports car (I guess they are heavier than I thought). To better compare I think that Audi is a good comparison (price, style, luxury).

So though they're weights are similar the Audi has a range of 424.6/559.9 and the Tesla has 285. That's 50.1%-67.2% of the range (let's say 60%).

Yes, ~300mi is a mostly comfortable range, but it's the same weight for 60% the range (and 5k more). To get the same range we'd have to add a ton of weight, which would probably push us to 2x (maybe the original comparison was decent enough?).

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

#128

Post by einpoklum »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #125
einpoklum wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take from the rich and give to the poor all day long - but that in itself doesn't reduce emissions. The rich will pay some taxes, or more probably, evade them, offshore stuff etc, and emissions will continue.

The rich can hide money, but it's a lot harder for them to hide consumption, and the carbon tax is a consumption tax.

So what? So they'll pay consumption tax. They're rich, after all, they can afford it.

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

#129

Post by toomuchtodo »

godelski wrote: post #127
qiqitori wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Tesla is twice the weight of an equivalent ICE car? The Model S (2019) appears to look roughly the same and appears to be roughly the same size as the Audi A7 (2019), and is just a bit heavier (Tesla curb weight 4883 lbs, Audi 4332 lbs). https://www.cars.com/research/compare/?acodes=USC90TSC024F0,...

I was comparing with ranges, sorry should have specified. Equivalent cars with ranges. Though maybe this isn't the best because a model S is a sports car (I guess they are heavier than I thought). To better compare I think that Audi is a good comparison (price, style, luxury). So though they're weights are similar the Audi has a range of 424.6/559.9 and the Tesla has 285. That's 50.1%-67.2% of the range (let's say 60…

Model S and X range is close to 370 miles with the long range battery and Raven drivetrain (in production for several months), not 300.

With Supercharger stations being no more than 150 miles apart (and that distance shrinking as more stations keep coming online), home charging, and per mile costs half that of internal combustion vehicles you mentioned, it’s a no brainer even considering the vehicle is somewhat (but not outrageously) heavier.

https://supercharge.info/map

Post reply on HN