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

Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 118 posts

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#11

Post by bryanlarsen »

Maximus9000 wrote: post #7
piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.

Far too late. 10 years to build is optimistic, and that is on top of a good decade or 2 of bureaucracy before even breaking ground.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#12

Post by bryanlarsen »

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker.

And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage:

1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds)

2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing somehwere")

3. over-provisioning. If you build 3 times as much wind power as you need, it's still a lot cheaper than nuclear and you need a lot less storage.

4. storage. It's expensive, but if you did 1-3 correctly, you don't need much of it.

Nuclear is safe, but it's also crazy expensive and takes decades to build.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#13

Post by Karunamon »

apatters wrote: post #4
gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

Victory Gardens worked because they had a patriotic, pro-war, pro-America appeal. Sort of a "Keep America Great" thing. I suspect there's zero chance that this type of sentiment could be harnessed for "Hey, let's offset carbon emissions [of whom the #1 emitter is our chief political rival, China]" In fact that's the biggest problem with broadening support for decarbonization in general. The largest share of global ca…

Per the article:

>While Victory Gardens were portrayed as a patriotic duty, 54% of Americans polled said they grew gardens for economic reasons while only 20% mentioned patriotism. (which cites the book Eating for victory : food rationing and the politics of domesticity)

Combined with the produce shows and competitions mentioned, I'd put indirect social pressure and saturation advertisement above the patriotism angle with this in mind. I'd wager that if there was a push to have people grow their own veg again, citing economic reasons, and calling them "freedom gardens" or some such, we could see a similar level of success.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#14

Post by efnx »

bjoli wrote: post #3
gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

Considering how much arable land is used to produce animal feed (about 50%) there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially considering how inefficient meat production is.

The first and easiest thing we can each do, individually, is eat less meat (or better - no meat).

My wife and I have been mostly vegan for a year for health reasons and it’s surprisingly easy. Throw on the eco benefit and it’s a very good feeling. Very worth it.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#15

Post by jnordwick »

gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

Everybody becomes a part time farmers? Yeah, I'll pass and almost everybody else will too. Let's try to stay in reality.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#16

Post by cowmoo728 »

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles

2. huge political hurdles

3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years

I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make some other clean energy investments RIGHT NOW that will soften the blow until we finish building those reactors.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#17

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

A principle pillar of our modern civilization is, we went from 50% farmers to Everybody going back to farming is a way to use the unemployed I guess. Maybe it'll have a comeback once we've automated everything (we're well down that path now).

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#18

Post by bryanlarsen »

As the article indicates, the basic problem is a international co-ordination problem.

Nordhaus won a Nobel Memorial Prize proposing a solution: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/

To oversimplify: carbon tariffs on any country not doing their part.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#19

Post by gdubs »

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

I’m all for nuclear. But we haven’t yet replaced petrochemicals or concrete, for example. Energy production is just one slice of the pie.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#20

Post by jnordwick »

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN