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

Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 205 posts

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#21

Post by altacc »

astrodust wrote: post #4
verdverm wrote: post #2

Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?

Trees. You're talking about trees.

Trees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change, so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's a bit like building an extension to your house whilst the house is on fire. It'll catch up eventually.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#22

Post by mc32 »

eterm wrote: post #16
throwaway122kk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for, thanks to their knee jerk reaction to nuclear one of the technologies (note that I say "one of", there is a range of choices, not an either/or black/white choice, as is so often case on internet discussions nowadays) we ended up with more coal/oil power plants contributing towards climate change nuclear could have been the bridging technology buying…

Greenpeace isn't that influential, the reality is that the economics of nuclear never added up. Also, there really is something off-putting about leaving behind waste that lasts longer than civilisation has.

Enough to impress college kids and stay at home moms to protest and oppose construction of new plants.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#23

Post by melling »

Pfhreak wrote: post #11
throwaway122kk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for, thanks to their knee jerk reaction to nuclear one of the technologies (note that I say "one of", there is a range of choices, not an either/or black/white choice, as is so often case on internet discussions nowadays) we ended up with more coal/oil power plants contributing towards climate change nuclear could have been the bridging technology buying…

We are where we are now. Turn your effort towards the future -- how do we get to where we want to go from where we are today. The same attitude applies in engineering -- post-mortems aren't about assigning blame, they are about understanding the current state and how you'll address or mitigate any failures so they don't happen again. If you want to be backwards looking, at least focus on what the lesson is and how yo…

In the future, there are 450 nuclear power plants that will need to replaced as they are retired.

There are about 100 nuclear plants in the United States generating 20% of the power.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#24

Post by arkh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
maxharris wrote: post #3

I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market. At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear…

> If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade.

If Climate Change is so important, declare a total war against it like during WW2 against the Axis. With most production geared toward nuclear energy, you should have generator up and running a lot faster.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#25

Post by toomuchtodo »

_qwfv wrote: post #15
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market. At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear…

> that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market Maybe capitalism isn't the right model for energy? Or, if you are a die hard capitalist, maybe we aren't costing externalities correctly and we should get some folks in power who will ensure that the right options are also the cost competitive options?

Even assuming you're not a die hard capitalist, why champion an outdated energy technology when there are superior options. We aren't costing CO2 properly, but then we're also not costing decommissioning of nuclear generators or the waste disposal either.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#26

Post by altacc »

LinuxBender wrote: post #6

Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?

The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#27

Post by omginternets »

eterm wrote: post #16
throwaway122kk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for, thanks to their knee jerk reaction to nuclear one of the technologies (note that I say "one of", there is a range of choices, not an either/or black/white choice, as is so often case on internet discussions nowadays) we ended up with more coal/oil power plants contributing towards climate change nuclear could have been the bridging technology buying…

Greenpeace isn't that influential, the reality is that the economics of nuclear never added up. Also, there really is something off-putting about leaving behind waste that lasts longer than civilisation has.

France is a shining counter-example to your claim.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#29

Post by arkh »

cogman10 wrote: post #13
maxharris wrote: post #3

I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

The time for nuclear has passed (at least fission. Fusion may still be a good future energy source). I say this because the cost of building a new nuclear plant is more expensive than wind and solar. Nuclear might still be a good solution for northern and southern habitats. But, at this point, where most pollution is produced, solar and wind are viable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source With…

Here is what you get some days with solar and wind: https://i.imgur.com/m2snJgg.png . Germany using a lot of standard gas and coal generators.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#30

Post by melling »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
maxharris wrote: post #3

I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market. At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear…

Nuclear power is 20% of electricity in the United States.

If you could replace it all in 3 years, wouldn’t we be better off replacing 20% of coal power over 3 years and wait a little longer on the nuclear power?

If your math is right, half the grid would be zero carbon in 5 years.

Post reply on HN