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

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

#81

Post by ng12 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #59

ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

How could it be made locally for cheap? Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks (not to mention all the other local stores)? Who is going to work in all of those factories for cheap? Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide?

There are plenty of American toothbrush manufacturers which already compete on price (I use Preserve, made from recycled material in America for $3). It's mostly the big guys (Colgate + OralB) who are trying to maximize profit by outsourcing to China.

> Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks

The manufacturer is going to pay for it by selling their products to drug stores.

> Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide?

How so? Even if there was a single manufactory in Oklahoma it could serve the entire country at a fraction of the environmental cost.

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

#82

Post by andbberger » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

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…

What's always bothered me about this argument is: how much of that cost stems from the nuclear industry being misregulated into a pulp over the last 50 years??

Regulatory decisions seem to be made on the basis of hysteria moreso than scientific merit. For instance, that in the US secondary waste is treated equally as dangerous as primary waste, leading to ludicrous disposal costs. And nuclear 'waste' isn't even an issue with many modern reactor designs.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the _current_ cost of bringing a new nuclear plant online is astronomical, but that doesn't mean that the cost can't be brought down tremendously with sane regulation and modern designs. In many ways, the nuclear industry is still in its infancy (how many of the reactors operating worldwide right now are boiling water reactors, literally the oldest and most dangerous design??). No one expects nascent technologies to be cheap, you look to the future.

And beyond that, nuclear and solar/wind are not directly comparable. Solar/wind cannot provide the base load that nuclear is so apt at. What you really need to be comparing is a nuclear plant vs renewable PLUS energy storage. And last time I checked, grid-level energy storage is still extremely expensive.

I don't think you can dismiss nuclear so easily. Not by a longshot.

It still blows my mind that we found an almost magical solution to use of fossil fuels over 60 years ago and fumbled it so hard. Shame on big oil, shame on our regulatory agencies and politicians.

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

#83

Post by DennisP » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

From that Lazard report, PV with four hours storage costs 10 to 13 cents/kWh. That's "in front of the meter" which is the wholesale cost. For retail cost, commercial/industrial pays 22 to 38 cents/kWh, and residential pays 45 to 66 cents/kWh.

That's with only four hours storage. That's a convenient amount since it's the excess typically generated by solar installations during the day, but to actually get through a windless night we might need more storage. Lazard's retail cost for storage alone is 48 to 104 cents/kWh. Plus you'll need extra solar dedicated to charging it.

At this point people often bring up long-distance transmission. The report happens to include that too, with a cost starting at $2.35/kWh wholesale and going way up from there.

None of this includes the overcapacity we'd need, to get through cloudy winter weeks.

Lazard puts nuclear's cost at 12 to 19 cents/kWh but it's unclear whether that's retail cost; I suspect so since I only pay 12 cents/kWh on a grid that's heavy on nuclear.

Wind/solar is very cheap when the grid is still mostly fossil, but to run a reliable carbon-free grid in areas without abundant hydro, nuclear is still cheaper. The cheapest combination is probably nuclear to the level of minimum nighttime load, and renewables for everything beyond that, without just enough storage to even out remaining discrepancies with demand.

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

#84

Post by altacc » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #55

altacc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have "committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on that, would help. Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear debate).

Very good point, transparency can be beneficial. Countries and their politicians are constantly making promises and commitments which they fail to live up to.

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

#85

Post by irrational » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #9

According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today. When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.

Basically, the western world went through their development cycle (aka the industrial revolution) and now the rest of the world wants to catch up. Of course, when we say they shouldn't because of climate change, they say "You had your chance to pollute and develop, now we get to do the same thing." Frankly, I find it difficult to argue with them. The only sensible thing to do is for the Western world to reverse back to where we were prior to the industrial revolution and ask the developing nations to do the same - no technology above a horse drawn plown and horse drawn wagons, everyone reverts to being in the agriculture business or supporting the agriculture business, no cars, no planes, only wind powered sailing ships, no rockets, no computers, etc.

Since that won't happen - we are royally screwed.

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

#86

Post by imtringued » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature. I'd love it…

What's there to plan? Your only options are to move and to do very risky geo engineering projects.

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

#87

Post by g_sch » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

arkh wrote: post #29

cogman10 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In, ahem, "fairness" to Germany, they operate some of the dirtiest lignite coal power plants in all of Europe. [0] Despite their self-promotion as a leader in green energy transition with the Energiewende, they seem unwilling to shut down these very carbon-intensive operations. Even replacing these plants with hard/anthracite coal or natural gas would be a major improvement, but alas.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine

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

#88

Post by andbberger » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

throwaway122kk wrote: post #8

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.)

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 is a farce for sure, but surely some blame lies with big oil's lobbying efforts?

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

#89

Post by DennisP » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

altacc wrote: post #32

arkh wrote: post #24

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. 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.

The list of things I don't want built in a rush definitely includes nuclear reactors!

Yes, but it's also possible to go a lot slower than necessary. France converted their grid to 80% nuclear in 20 years and it seems to have worked out ok.

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

#90

Post by ng12 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

skummetmaelk wrote: post #66

ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true price of a product. The product should be cheaper if made locally because transport costs are reduced. At the moment transport is extremely cheap because there is no significant cost to producing emissions. If appropriate carbon taxes were added you would see such products being made more locally.

> Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true price of a product.

Fair, but in my mind this is why globalism is a thing -- because it doesn't account for the exploitation of human labor and lack of regulation. If it did, there would be no reason to ship a few dollars of plastic from China to the USA.