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

131–140 of 205 posts

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

#131

Post by gizmo686 »

irrational wrote: post #85
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…

There is no reason the developping world needs to go through the same cycle. They can leapfrog ahead to modern technology; particuarly if they are activly helped by developped nations.

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

#132

Post by akvadrako »

john_moscow wrote: post #125
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…

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

If you think CO₂ is something we should reduce, the tree planting idea that's been talked about recently looks pretty good. Even if their costs are off by a factor of 10 it's still affordable; trees are an almost ideal carbon capture tool.

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

#133

Post by tick_tock_tick »

gizmo686 wrote: post #114
whatshisface wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, today pushing for nuclear does more harm than good. You made the case for why you don't think nuclear can do any good (because it's too late), but what's the case for harm?

Every dollar invested into nuclear is a dollar not invested into solar/wind/etc. Building new nuclear just usn't the most effective use of limited capital to reduce emmisions at this point.

Every dollar in solar/wind/etc is wasted since it can't support the population without falling back to coal and gas. Renewable are a crapshoot relying on new storage technology that doesn't exist to make then viable. Why not focus on something we can 100% guarantee will fix the issues instead of leaving it to chance?

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

#134

Post by cogman10 »

DennisP wrote: post #58
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…

The cheapest option is probably to build nuclear to the level that meets minimum demand at night, and solar for everything on top of that, with just enough storage to even out the remaining discrepancies. Storage is quite a bit more expensive than nuclear, and while the cost is dropping it has a long way to go. At the same time, new nuclear technologies like molten salt reactors could well drop the price of nuclear.…

Besides the cost problem, deployment is also a huge issue with nuclear. It takes 10->20 years before a new nuclear plant produces it's first watt hour.

I can get behind the idea of pushing for nuclear in the case of baseload and even in the case of high population density areas where wind/solar are simply not practical. But, if there is anywhere to dump a bunch of money, it is wind and solar. We can have those producing electricity within a year, easily. Even if you want to talk about manufacturing costs, those are payed back within 1->5 years. Still shorter than the timeframe to getting a new nuclear plant online.

I'm not saying this to be anti-nuclear. I think it was a great solution. I just think that solar and wind have become the better solutions (at least for the shorter term).

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

#135

Post by john_moscow »

akvadrako wrote: post #132
john_moscow wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

If you think CO₂ is something we should reduce, the tree planting idea that's been talked about recently looks pretty good. Even if their costs are off by a factor of 10 it's still affordable; trees are an almost ideal carbon capture tool.

Planting trees will trap some atmospheric carbon in the lumber. However, once the lifespan of the tree is over and it starts rotting away, most of the carbon will get released back into the atmosphere, as it has been happening for millions of years.

In my opinion, it's not about planting the trees, it's about finding a way to turn the carbon trapped by them into something logistically and economically comparable to fossil fuels.

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

#136

Post by cogman10 »

g_sch wrote: post #106
DennisP wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cheapest option is probably to build nuclear to the level that meets minimum demand at night, and solar for everything on top of that, with just enough storage to even out the remaining discrepancies. Storage is quite a bit more expensive than nuclear, and while the cost is dropping it has a long way to go. At the same time, new nuclear technologies like molten salt reactors could well drop the price of nuclear.…

This is a great point - solar/wind and nuclear are, as the grid currently works, not drop-in replacements to each other, but complements. Nuclear provides base load (because it's difficult and slow to ramp a nuclear plant up or down), Wind/solar provides as much daytime load as practical, and meeting any remaining demand (especially peak evening demand) will require a peaking source that can dynamically be ramped up…

They all suffer from the same problem, none of them are ramping sources. You need a peaker plant for all of them (though, you'll need more for solar and wind).

Storage is a problem that simply needs to be solved for any green solution. Nuclear and wind included.

A big issue is that solar, wind, and nuclear simply don't play well together. Nuclear wants to be a base load, solar and wind push down the maximum base load feasible.

Without storage to smooth out the demand curve, you can't efficiently operate either.

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

#137

Post by TomMarius »

john_moscow wrote: post #125
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…

I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years int…

I really like and vouch for the last paragraph

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

#138

Post by akvadrako »

john_moscow wrote: post #135
akvadrako wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think CO₂ is something we should reduce, the tree planting idea that's been talked about recently looks pretty good. Even if their costs are off by a factor of 10 it's still affordable; trees are an almost ideal carbon capture tool.

Planting trees will trap some atmospheric carbon in the lumber. However, once the lifespan of the tree is over and it starts rotting away, most of the carbon will get released back into the atmosphere, as it has been happening for millions of years. In my opinion, it's not about planting the trees, it's about finding a way to turn the carbon trapped by them into something logistically and economically comparable to f…

That's not a problem because new trees will grow in their place. Those trees can capture all the carbon humans have put into the atmosphere so far.

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

#139

Post by perfunctory »

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…

> We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios

Who is "we" here? If by "we" you mean those humans that are incapable of coordinated political action, then I don't see us planning for the worst at the moment. You just replaced one unattainable goal with another. If by "we" you mean everyone individually should start building bunkers for themselves, then that's a perfect recipe for extinction.

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

#140

Post by Skunkleton »

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…

You can't just look at cost/kwh. You have to look at the cost of meeting total instantaneous energy demands. Sure, solar and wind are cheaper in many places, but they all depend on a reliable fallback like natural gas. I really don't see how we can avoid fission power for the time being. Its the only current technology that is 100% compatible with our existing grid.
Post reply on HN