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

111–120 of 241 posts

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

#111

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

EGreg wrote: post #102

NUCLEAR REACTORS will be needed soon to desalinate water. May as well learn to build them safely! Especially don’t make them giant targets for terrorists and hackers. BUT ALSO we need to end factory farming and transition the vast majority of cars to electric. The main reason they are still locked exclusively into hydrocarbons is the massive subsidies the US government has given to fossil fuels. Otherwise we could ha…

What are those subsidizes? If you don't count the negative impact of releasing carbon, then the subsidies are a myth.

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

#112

Post by namirez »

hanniabu wrote: post #93
juped wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fission is safe. Fission many decades ago.

Yes, entirely safe, that's why nobody is living in Chernobyl and they're using robots to enter Fukashima. Totally safe....

I'm not an expert, but apparently, there are new designs that are inherently safe in the sense that meltdown will never happen even in case of total power failure. But of course, nuclear waste management is a contentious issue.

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

#113

Post by fouc »

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…

There's a limited number of spots to stick a nuclear reactor. So it's hard to actually scale that up.

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

#114

Post by ggm »

xyzzyz wrote: post #103
ggm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course it will provide some output. The issue here is that if you want the diminished power output in winter to cover the energy use in winter, you need to either store the summer energy in some way, or overbuild by adding additional generation capacity, so that in summer you have some good multiple generating capacity of what you actually need, especially if you account for transmission losses, which are 2/3rds o…

You don't seem to understand either pumped-hydro, or economics. Using hyperbolic language like "through the roof" when we cannot magically wave a wand to make a 100% renewables world in one go, but are approaching it asymptotically means that the pricing function, the costs, and the outcomes are not 'through the roof' but a function of where we are in a migration.

I don't know how to predict the future reliably either. I just think the argument here is ridiculously reductive.

We aren't on mars. The current systems exist, and won't be turned off overnight, and we don't have a single global network in the economy under discussion. Pricing and distribution and storage have to be approached, not arrived at suddenly, And have upside consequences like increased employment, which means the spend is not 'hole in the ground' but actually has net beneficial effects on the economy.

To repeat what I said elsewhere you have mis-represented the 2/3 losses figure.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr...

(same source as you) is clear transmission losses are significantly different. You rolled up energy conversion and production losses from all sources which includes Coal and Gas and Oil and Nuclear.

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

#115

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

Well, all this is besides the point. Which is, our economic activity is destroying the environment (and not just through climate change) but we 're not stopping because it would cost a lot of money.

So basically we're putting money over the survival of the species and generally life on earth. Our priorities are back to front, and discussing how cheap or expensive it is to switch to renewables is pointless. We're just headed for extinction. And good riddance to us, because we're bloody stupid monkeys who can't control the processes we set in motion. Becaues we are reckless and destructive and we do not trust each other enough to work together to avert our shared catastrophe.

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

#116

Post by NeedMoreTea »

falcolas wrote: post #40
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.

When it's sunny and windy. Thus far we don't have a large scale way to take sunny and windy day energy and store it for less sunny and windy days (or even to transfer it from sunny and windy locations across thousands of miles to non-sunny/windy places). EDIT: I'd appreciate knowing where I'm wrong.

The problem with the simplistic comment is we do already have large scale ways to store and move energy, and wind is typically available offshore 24/7, though some coasts are better served than others. We haven't chosen to build that storage yet. We also have ways to move demand to times of excess. Trying to keep it short and intentionally ignoring new ideas like molten salt and winched weights etc:

+ A smart grid allows demand and load to be managed, home and industrial storage and devices to be controlled to vary the load. This is a direction Europe is moving in. Your industrial heavy user might willingly sign up to a service that can be cut to stop grid crash in exchange for discount on the vast amount of electric used - this has quietly existed for decades. Getting smarter, homes and other premises can have charging and in building devices controlled to move demand, and in home spare solar battery added to grid storage for the overnight. Again for discounts. There are examples of this working already.

+ Pumped hydro can add TWh of storage if built at scale. It needs suitable geography, but we don't lack potential sites. Sites that would attract a NIMBY reaction can take the "hollowed out mountain" approach, invisible when finished. Again, plenty of examples exist. Unlike battery will last hundreds of years needing only turbine replacement periodically. The higher build cost can amortise beyond a lifetime.

+ It is very unlikely the whole of the US will completely lack wind at the same time, especially offshore. It's just about unheard of for tiny UK to be becalmed, though admittedly we're more "blessed" with wind than many regions. Over specify to allow the regions with wind to assist any region currently becalmed.

+ Last, use neighbours as storage - sell and buy electric from surrounding countries to smooth each other's demand. Once again this is already coming into being across Europe with the super-grid.

In short, we have ample ways to store and move electricity, along with managing demand today. It's already being done in many places. We just need the political will do more of it to support a fully renewable grid.

FWIW, I also tend to agree 10 of his 11 closing points. I'm not at all convinced by his argument renewables can't scale up to cover all global electric generation.

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

#117

Post by ggm »

xyzzyz wrote: post #96
heavyset_go wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the transmission power losses over large stretches of land?

2/3rds of the electricity produced in the US is lost in transmission: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ EDIT: this is actually wrong, I misinterpreted the diagram, see the comment below.

Go look at https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electr...

I believe you mis-quoted the figures. You rolled up total conversion costs and bloated them into transmission losses.

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

#118

Post by Invictus0 »

journalctl wrote: post #78
yters wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I propose all recommending population reduction lead by example starting with themselves.

Condoms are cheaper than bullets.

Ignoring the ridiculous notion of killing people to stop population growth, that isn't true at all, especially if you consider that it takes one bullet to kill someone and thousands of condoms to prevent the birth of a child.

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

#119

Post by EGreg »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #111
EGreg wrote: post #102

NUCLEAR REACTORS will be needed soon to desalinate water. May as well learn to build them safely! Especially don’t make them giant targets for terrorists and hackers. BUT ALSO we need to end factory farming and transition the vast majority of cars to electric. The main reason they are still locked exclusively into hydrocarbons is the massive subsidies the US government has given to fossil fuels. Otherwise we could ha…

What are those subsidizes? If you don't count the negative impact of releasing carbon, then the subsidies are a myth.

Just the oil ones

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/10/02/document_gw_01.pdf

But these days other countries are far worse in fuel subsidies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united...

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

#120

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

julienb_sea wrote: post #101
graeme wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This worldview implies abandoning all coastal cities and several entire countries, correct? Sea level rise alone requires that, to say nothing of other effects. And then there's higher wet bulb temperatures in heat waves. With enough warming, that should render a large chunk of the planet effectively uninhabitable without AC. Do you accept these consequences when you make such claims?

Yes, my expectation is that we will build habitats which withstand sea level rise and temperature fluctuations, and abandon habitats which cannot be retrofitted to withstand present conditions.

Which is the way humanity has always responded to crisis. They move and adapt.
Post reply on HN