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

Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

thetyee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 241 posts

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#61

Post by shrimp_emoji »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #22

The crux of the matter is that we need to drive thermodynamics backward at planetary scale. This is a fancy way of saying that we need to increase electricity generation by an integer factor beyond current global demand without producing net CO2. The list of existing energy sources capable of scaling like this that don't rely on burning carbon is extremely short: nuclear fission. I don't see any possibility of the re…

>irrational politics around nuclear power

Fusion is safe! D: Fusion when?

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#62

Post by roenxi »

smoll wrote: post #27
jandrewrogers wrote: post #22

The crux of the matter is that we need to drive thermodynamics backward at planetary scale. This is a fancy way of saying that we need to increase electricity generation by an integer factor beyond current global demand without producing net CO2. The list of existing energy sources capable of scaling like this that don't rely on burning carbon is extremely short: nuclear fission. I don't see any possibility of the re…

But necessity is the mother of invention, so we will probably invent a viable nuclear fission-based energy solution at the 11th hour, probably by someone who also helped cause the death of countless people through their earlier work[0]. I know this sounds absurdly far-fetched, but it’s pretty much par for the course for us humans. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

Plans that involve being pleasantly surprised are not good plans. Haber was preceded by centuries of warfare that did not produce inventions of such significance.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#63

Post by usrusr »

cyrksoft wrote: post #45
toxik wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably just family planning. Nobody needs to die to save the earth, well, not execution at least

Family planning how? Who will decide who can have children and who can't? Governments? A global one child policy? That's insane

But is cancer-like growth until host EOL less insane?

A starting point would be to just stop treating big-family parents like heros. "You're not exactly doing me a favor by spreading your genes like that"

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#64

Post by graeme »

Scaevolus wrote: post #34
greglindahl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The list of existing energy sources capable of scaling like this ... solar and wind are scaling much better than every prediction, for many years now, yet somehow that's not good enough for the people who claim to be realists. Odd.

You still need baseload power plants, and the economics of battery-based storage plants aren't there yet. Hydropower is a nice solution, but highly geography-dependent. China is attacking this problem by investing heavily in ultra-long-range HVDC power transmission from dams in the west to cities on the east.

For using power to suck carbon out of the air, would you need baseload power, or could you have a machine that ran whenever cheap solar electricity was available.

Removing CO2 is important, and urgent in the medium term, but it isn't urgent in the "must happen this second" sense. Intermitten removal would be fine if the removal tech could be power intermittently.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#65

Post by cyrksoft »

XorNot wrote: post #50
cyrksoft wrote: post #35

"11. A global population strategy to enable a smooth descent to the two to three billion that could live comfortably indefinitely within the biophysical means of nature." Part 2: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/12/Climate-Crisis-Realis... This is highly disturbing. With the 11,000 scientist warning the other day they proposed something similar. I find it very worrying. Who will decide who lives? Or who has kids a…

If the human population were limited to one-child per couple for a few decades, then everyone can have a family, and the population still declines. This is happening naturally in a lot of countries already: > According to projections of the population with the current fertility rate, over 65s will account for 40% of the population by 2060,[10][11] and the total population will fall by a third from 128 million in 2010…

I know population will decline, but not as a policy. If it happens naturally then it's perfectly ok. The fact that politicians get to decide how many kids or even if you can have kids is a scary thought.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#66

Post by XorNot »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #7

There's an interesting point here on the resource intensiveness of creating 'renewable' energy itself (ie. windmill costs). I share the authors concern here that doing the exact same thing we're doing now but handwave electric is not going to get us to where we're going to need to be. We need to be smarter about how we use energy and our resources and use less. For example shifting our entire automobile based transpo…

Decoupling transportation from fuel source via electricity makes the problem a lot more tractable. It's a lot easier to regulate and change a few hundred generators then hundreds of millions of individual ICEs.

Modern coal-fired powerplants are substantially more efficient then car internal combustion engines.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#67

Post by ggm »

xyzzyz wrote: post #52
jhayward wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.

So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?

Have you actually found a confirmed reliable meteorology backed statement on a continent-wide, windless week? Compared to e.g. the current likelihood of catastrophic failure of parts of the net, Aurora effects on powerlines, Ice, Fire..

you're floating a strawman which has never been floated as a serious risk analysis: there isn't a single US distribution network, it is not a single integral thing, parts fail all the time, and more to the point, you haven't even demonstrated one weather system can produce no wind and no solar output for a week.

Winter does not == the entire united states is black for 24h/day. The Rockies exist, and weather on the west coast is not like weather in the mid-west, or the east coast, all the time, for sustained week-long periods.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#68

Post by taneq »

xyzzyz wrote: post #52
jhayward wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.

So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?

Solar panels? Even on the most heavily clouded days mine generate over 50% of nominal. And on that very rare windless, deeply overcast week, maybe we adapt and just don't run the tumble dryer or aircon for a week? Most house energy usage is pretty gratuitous and if you cut it back to lighting, refrigeration and entertainment you could get by on a few kWh a day.

If you absolutely must have 100% uptime then $1000 will get you a diesel generator which would keep the batteries topped off if you ever need it.

And if your argument is that someone living inside the arctic circle could find themselves becalmed for too long during the long night... then maybe back it up a notch and realise that 99% of humans don't live in those conditions and maybe the ones that do can still use some fuel oil.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#69

Post by cyrksoft »

jejei93ndmd wrote: post #54
cyrksoft wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Family planning how? Who will decide who can have children and who can't? Governments? A global one child policy? That's insane

Is it insane to alter social norms to save the species as a whole or let people drive it off the cliff by treating a uterus like a clown car? We’re so far away from having to debate this as realistic thing politically right now, the discourse is an exercise in fear mongering. Plenty to be freaked out about before next month is passed.

Having kids is not a social norm (at least not in every case). Who are you or any politician to decide how many kids can a couple have? Even if it only is fear mongering, I bet you this will be a political discussion in some years.

Re: Don’t Call Me a Pessimist on Climate Change. I Am a Realist

#70

Post by apcragg »

xyzzyz wrote: post #52
jhayward wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.

So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?

Is there any evidence that this ever happens? Or at least happens more frequently than say, a 1979 style fossile fuel shortage?
Post reply on HN