Live data from Hacker News

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

thetyee.ca

181–190 of 241 posts

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

#181
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting 250 milliseconds and needing 15,000 from? Wikipedia claims US yearly electricity consumption is 4,090 TWh, and Bath County stores 24 TWh, with a generation capacity of 3,003 MW. That comes out as enough storage for a couple of days worth of US electricity use. Obviously you'd need 3 more to cover generation capacity.

Ah, I rechecked, I actually lost 2 orders of magnitude. It's 25 seconds, not 250 milliseconds. However, you lost 3 orders of magnitude: Bath County is 24 GWh, not TWh. My calculation was done under assumption of 101 quads of annual US energy use, but I'll redo this calculation with assumption more charitable to your argument. US uses only 4090 TWh worth of electricity, which is about 13 quads, but it also uses about…

Oops, seems my split second skim of Wikipedia was a shortcut too far. :) I had to look up a quad (a short-scale quadrillion BTU). Haven't come across British Thermal Units in Britain for decades!

Anyway. 100 of that scale might be better or easier as 1,000 smaller capacity, but even then we can reduce further. Some percentage of the grid is nuclear (roughly 20% of US electric) which would not need underwriting nor would 100% of continental wind power ever be becalmed. I would further assume that any concerted national effort to electrify carbon neutrally would come with a matching efficiency drive - insulation, tax inefficient users, take first steps toward a national grid (that TIL the US apparently does not have), etc to allow you to use the power you have rather better.

Yet ignoring all that, the US must have thousands or tens of thousands of disused mines and quarries, probably many open ones with an accidental lake in their place that could be repurposed. If there's adequate volume, you don't need much head of water. There's no shortage of hills and mountains with rainfall or snow melt that should give plenty of potential spots, population and environment permitting. The one thing America does not lack is space - of all terrain types.

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

#182
post #50

"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 think at the point where we're reading straight-faced advocacy of the One-Child Policy we've left the realm of curiosity-driven discussion and mired ourselves in provocation for its own sake. That's no good, and we shouldn't be taking comments like that seriously.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

So, we don't have it in the US, and don't have plans to have it in anything resembling a helpful timeframe. All we have is a few people installing solar on their roof and patting themselves on their back for saving our future. > A smart grid allows demand and load to be managed Which we don't have on a national (let alone international) scale, and won't have in any reasonable period of time. > Pumped hydro can add TW…

Sure you don't have that now, but if nothing is going to be changed, nothing is going to be fixed. Coal until it runs out then.

The sticking point is political, not technical or logistical. If there are ever politicians convinced climate heating, and sustainability is important, it's fixable with no more difficulty than building a highway network. Undoubtedly you'll say citizens won't tolerate the taxes that would be needed -- still a political issue. Those can change.

As the International Energy Agency noted today whilst criticising the completely inadequate efforts the globe is making: “We will need to see great political will around the world. This is why I believe that the world needs to build a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else who is genuinely committed to tackling climate change.”

> That wouldn't even cover the electricity imported into CA

In a year. CA doesn't need a year's storage backup capacity, just enough to cover cyclic shortfalls. A few hours to cover winter nights, that's under a day's worth at most.

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

#184
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be skeptical of skeptical science. It's a pop science blog, and an opinionated one, it's not an arbiter of truth. The second post was better, but it's from 2011...and the PDO did not stay negative for very long, by 2015 it was positive again, so that was not a longer term negative flip in PDO [1]. So we saw warmer temps in 2016, which briefly skirted highs set in 1998...but since then global temps have coo…

> The AMO will go negative sometime in the 2020s and it will coincide with a negative PDO and a grand solar minimum and that is well correlated with global temps dropping based on thousands of years of ice cores and tree rings. That's not the issue. You attacked my sources but yours don't present significantly different facts. I'll grant that we might get a relatively chill decade. And then those pendula will swing b…

Where do you get your 3-5C increase from? Observed temperatures over the last few decades have only increased by about 0.13C per decade. We have not seen a warmer year than 1998. Despite massive increases in CO2 as China and India have industrialized.

UAH satellite temperature data: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

2004 article showing the prior 70 years featured unusually high sunspots: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15510145/

Changes in Asian monsoons linked to solar output: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15879216/

Impact of AMO and PDO on temperature: https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/30/impact-of-amopdo-on-u-s-r...

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid you're right, but I'm also afraid that no one has the necessary combination of money, technological skill and military might to undertake that kind of geoengineering unilaterally.

This paper estimates the cost at ~$2.25B/year, and notes that more than 50 countries have military budgets exceeding $3B: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d#... They point out the plan assumes you can launch planes from a few different points around the globe. You don’t need global agreement, but at least access to some foreign airports.

The scary part is how to resolve disputes over geoengineering. What if China decides to make the Gobi desert farmland but downwind it makes California the new Sahara desert?

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

#186
post #173
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately there are no realists in a position to really affect Government investment. Why is every nation not committing an investment on the scale of the Apollo/Manhattan Projects? Politically it should be sell-able as a near-term investment (jobs) and future prosperity (cheaper renewable energy). Governments should be putting billions into fusion, wave/tidal generation (nothing should be too expensive), upgradi…

Isnt that basically ITER? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/a-star-in-a-bo...

Yes, but why just ITER? Can we really wait until 2035 at which point it's still just a PoC before working on DEMO, and how many DEMOs can we build quickly after that?

There is promising work coming out of Lockheed's Skunk Works, using a completely different design and MIT has SPARC. Given ITER is pretty well locked in on the Tokamak design they've chosen and it a matter of building it, why not fund as many ideas as possible as while most may not work, you just don't know whether one results in a discovery and pivot that changes everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion...

https://www.psfc.mit.edu/sparc

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

#187
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The AMO will go negative sometime in the 2020s and it will coincide with a negative PDO and a grand solar minimum and that is well correlated with global temps dropping based on thousands of years of ice cores and tree rings. That's not the issue. You attacked my sources but yours don't present significantly different facts. I'll grant that we might get a relatively chill decade. And then those pendula will swing b…

Where do you get your 3-5C increase from? Observed temperatures over the last few decades have only increased by about 0.13C per decade. We have not seen a warmer year than 1998. Despite massive increases in CO2 as China and India have industrialized. UAH satellite temperature data: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ 2004 article showing the prior 70 years featured unusually high sunspots: https…

Temperature baseline is against pre-industrial average, and two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade[1]. It's accelerating, and yes we have seen 9 warmer years than 1998[2] - all in the 21st century.

[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltem...

[2] https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hotte...

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

#188

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.

Hydropower is actually not so nice when you take into account that it's the reason that many fish species are on the brink of extinction. That's in Europe at least but it seems that it's also a problem in the US, see https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gvm7vq/power-plants-are-b...

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

#189
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Yeah, you can fuck right off. I may consider stopping at 3 kids. Or I may not.

Structuring tax policy so there was a steep break for one child, a marginal break for 2, and none for any more, would be fairly likely to achieve this goal.

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are going to need technology that will pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, doing that is very energy intensive Wouldn't you need even more energy to pull it in that it took to release it? So to undo 10 years worth of global emissions, you'd need more energy than was generated worldwide over those 10 years? Sounds impossible.

No, technology like Direct Air Capture requires about 250kWh as a theoretical minimum to capture 1 ton of CO2. Current methods require about 600kWh. Meanwhile, one ton of coal generates about 2,500kWh of electricity.

This is not correct. Per the DAC literature I've seen, the fully burdened energy cost to capture a ton of CO2 is around 12 MWh. The numbers you provided appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics on their face, whereas the 12 MWh number does not.

The 250kWh number likely only accounts for the operational energy requirements, not the fully burdened energy requirements of creating the consumable inputs.

Post reply on HN