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

141–150 of 205 posts

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

#141

Post by cogman10 »

andbberger wrote: post #82
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…

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 is…

> 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??

Agreed! Nuclear could be much cheaper were there not so much fear mongering and red tape in the path. Chernobyl and TMI taught us the wrong lesions as a society. However, fat chance getting those policies, politics, and activists minds changed to decrease those regulatory costs.

> 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 discreet per say. However, for the US, most power grids simply aren't at the point where storage needs to be considered. A large portion of power is coming from fossil fuels (more than the tipping point where storage needs to be considered).

In those cases, the clear path forward that will cut carbon emissions the fastest is deployment of renewable tech. You can bring online new solar and wind plants in less than a year. Nuclear requires at least 10->20 years of time before it can be brought online (mostly due to all the regulations surrounding it).

Storage will enter the equation when a large percentage of the grid is renewable (30->50% someone cited). We simply aren't even near that point yet. However, even before we hit that point, natural gas can provide a stop gap to allow us to have even higher mixes of renewable generation.

Nuclear doesn't solve the storage problem. You still need a peaker plant with nuclear.

> 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.

Agreed. We SHOULD have been ramping up on nuclear usage. I would MUCH rather have to deal with localized nuclear waste problems vs our current issues with climate change. It was simply a societal failure that we didn't go nuclear for everything from the 1960 onward.

It was the best solution to climate change for nearly a half century and the very people that should have supported (environmentalist) killed it with fear mongering.

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

#142

Post by DennisP »

cogman10 wrote: post #134
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.…

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 produc…

I agree nuclear is more of a long-term solution. Solar is the way to go right now, with nuclear coming online as solar gets to such high market penetration that storage is a serious issue. Until then, we can back solar with the remaining fossil on the grid.

The deployment time is a solvable problem though. We've built nuclear faster in the past, and some places still do today. France converted to 80% nuclear in 20 years, South Korea has recently built modern reactors in about five years [1], and some new designs can be mass-produced in factories. Thorcon is working on building molten salt reactors in shipyards, at massive scale [2].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/21...

[2] http://thorconpower.com/production/

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

#143

Post by RockIslandLine »

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!

And yet a ten year timeline is obviously nonsense. When these reactors were built in the 1970s, groundbreaking to power production was often 5 years.

Why is the process much worse now?

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

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

#144

Post by cogman10 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #61
api wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really answer the point, which was that new solar and wind tend to be cheaper than new nuclear as of 2019.

It doesn't matter how cheap it is. No sun and no wind means no power, which means using coal and other fossil fuels. Increasing use of natural gas has reduced emissions more than switching to renewables.

Increased natural gas usage has been primarily pushed because of the rise renewables.

Natural gas is currently the peaker plant solution to renewables. The fact that more of these plants exist is primarily driven by the fact that larger portions of the grid are being pushed towards renewables.

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

#145

Post by DennisP »

cogman10 wrote: post #136
g_sch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The question isn't whether you'll need storage at all. It's whether it's cheaper to build enough storage for windless nights, or baseload nuclear and enough storage for remaining demand discrepancies.

I think the latter is more feasible without too much wind, since solar predictably goes to zero when demand is lowest. I don't think it's at all clear that a grid with high amounts of wind instead of nuclear would be cheaper.

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

#146

Post by foobiekr »

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…

I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world should be allowed to have higher emissions.

If we could go back in time and the US had the option at the time of using today's technology, and they chose not to, we would condemn them.

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

#147

Post by RockIslandLine »

magnamerc wrote: post #107
blondie9x wrote: post #74

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole. Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure gover…

I don't want to discourage you, because everything counts, but I think the real problem with climate change isn't in the West, it's in the rest of the world. The West had the luxury of using cheap carbon in the early 20th century to industrialize and build out infrastructure. India and countries in Africa haven't had that luxury, therefore they are going to use as much carbon as is necessary to industrialize. It woul…

"It would be hypocritical for Westerners to criticize them for it."

I'm not fully convinced. When you know better, you do better. And we now know better.

"A did a stupid thing to achieve X result, therefore B must be allowed to do the same stupid thing" is not a great argument.

There's more than one way to create economic value.

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

#148

Post by cogman10 »

mlyle wrote: post #72
api wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really answer the point, which was that new solar and wind tend to be cheaper than new nuclear as of 2019.

The thing is, storage is unsolved. Battery isn't going to cut it. Pumped hydro isn't realistic for much, and we're using intermittent hydro about as well as we can. Thermal solar is unproven economically, but getting closer. Power->gas->power is marginal. A little bit of nuclear in the mix, plus storing biogas, and aggressively pursuing thermal solar is very important, IMO. It just isn't possible to overprovision win…

Natural gas isn't a base load power source, it is a peaker power source.

Even with a pure nuclear grid, you'd still need a peaking source. That would be provided, probably, by natural gas or hydro if available.

A storage solution is simply required regardless of where the grid goes. I think that Liquid metal batteries look to be the best solution for grid level storage. (relatively cheap, super long life, if massively adopted would likely become a lot cheaper).

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

#149

Post by john_moscow »

akvadrako wrote: post #138
john_moscow wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that means that planting a tree binds a finite "tree lifetime" amount of carbon. So, in order to neutralize the worldwide carbon emissions using trees, we would need to keep planting them as long as we keep releasing CO2. So we would need to consume X square miles of agriculturally suitable land per year to simply keep the net emission at zero.

Now, IIRC, the energy density of oil is much higher than the one of lumber. I haven't done the calculation, but we might simply run out of suitable area way before any reasonable effect is reached. Don't forget that the logistics of tree planting will spend some CO2 as well, and given the finite CO2-per-planted-tree amount, it could be considerable.

Also if the trees have not spread naturally in the past millions of years in the area where you would want to plant them, there might be some ecological reasons to it. Hence, they may not survive long-term, or may get wiped by forest fires, or may require irrigation, fertilizers or other support that also produces CO2.

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

#150

Post by cogman10 »

mlyle wrote: post #80
api wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really answer the point, which was that new solar and wind tend to be cheaper than new nuclear as of 2019.

The point is, we don't really see a path to enough wind + appropriate storage in order to have a carbon neutral grid... but France performed the transition to a nearly-carbon neutral grid decades ago with nuclear, and the fully-amortized cost of French electricity isn't that bad.

France got there by exporting their excess power to other nations.

If everyone does it, then there would be no place to export excess, what do you do then?

Post reply on HN