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

31–40 of 118 posts

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

#31

Post by michaelt »

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…

I don't know if you've ever tried growing food in your back yard to eat?

It's a fine hobby if you enjoy gardening and find satisfaction in the honest simplicity and hard work of digging over soil, weeding, and spreading manure.

But the truth is: supermarket food is incredibly cheap, and you'll be putting in 50 hours of labour to grow $20 worth of vegetables.

If you enjoy the process and don't mind not getting much output, by all means enjoy it as a hobby. But as a way to feed the nation? I'm skeptical.

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

#32

Post by kardos »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12
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 som…

> nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker.

Are we anywhere near the limits of what can be done with time-of-use pricing? If we flatten the "duck curve" then nuclear is a good match.

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

#33

Post by api »

bobajeff wrote: post #27
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…

>What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. You might say those were caused by outdated tech or bad management. I'm someone who doesn't think my local or national government would be immune to those failings.

One thing those disasters have shown about nuclear is that a single accident -- even if there is little loss of life -- absolutely ruins the economics of nuclear power. Even an accident with no loss of life will cost an absolute fortune to clean up and decommission due to how hard it is just to handle and transport the material.

Prior to Fukushima nuclear power was fairly economical in Japan. Post-Fukushima and in retrospect it would have been cheaper to cover every roof in Japan with solar panels, build loads of offshore wind, and build massive energy storage facilities and pumped storage reservoirs.

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

#34

Post by the8472 »

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…

How many gigawatt of nuclear power are built each year, and what's the trend curve on those numbers?

And what are the equivalent numbers on solar and wind?

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

#35

Post by scalio »

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…

What do you do with the waste? Blow it into the sun?

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

#36

Post by eb0la »

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.

I was 100% against nuclear because I fear the risks. But I believe it is a tool we must use.

Most nuclear plants have been working 20-40 years. We need new designs for safer, cheaper plants, and a viable storage for nuclear waste.

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

#37

Post by Gravityloss »

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.

And ten years later, with little done, this kind of a statement would look really bad in retrospect.

We need both fast actions and we also need actions that take ten years or even thirty. Everything helps.

I've been participating in climate discussions for multiple decades.

The less we do and the later we do, it's going to be worse. But it's still better than not doing anything.

Ie there's no point in time, after which it's not worth doing anything.

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

#38

Post by ben_w »

BurningFrog wrote: post #28
Maximus9000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

10 years is s perfectly fine. The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.

I would say misunderstanding rather than rumour — the original statement was closer to “Given how long it takes politicians to do things, we have until 2030 to get started on really fixing everything and not just painting things green and mistaking that for action”.

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

#39

Post by akuchling »

BurningFrog wrote: post #28
Maximus9000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

10 years is s perfectly fine. The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.

Here's a Twitter thread discussing the significance of the 2030 date: https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1104833329587806210

It's more complicated & nuanced than most blogs or stories have time for, but it's not an Internet rumor.

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

#40

Post by pdonis »

scalio wrote: post #35
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…

What do you do with the waste? Blow it into the sun?

You reprocess it to remove all the stuff that isn't actually "waste" because it's usable as fuel. What remains presents a much smaller storage problem which has known working solutions.
Post reply on HN