Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#41

Post by rglover » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #36

rglover wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What people in the West fail to understand is that in order for society to improve (and currently, remain stable), you need cheap, reliable energy. Renewables—seemingly, the proposed alternatives (wind and solar)—are neither cheap nor reliable. They're also dependent…

China dropped from 80% coal in 2010 to 57.7% in 2019. China’s exponential increase in electricity production means they don’t have nearly as many old coal power plants, but looking at what their building today is very promising.

And?

Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching thesis is to limit things that produce CO2 altogether, this statistic is irrelevant when contrasted with their actions.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#42

Post by nicklecompte » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

jcfrei wrote: post #32

xroche wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is even more hilarious: Germany oppose nuclear, which is the greenest energy source in terme of emissions, but managed to get funding to use "green" gas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

A big part of the problem are the green parties themselves. They were in many cases started as a youth movement against nuclear power in the 60s. The basis of these green parties consists of people who are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy and their youth rebellion against it is now part of their identity. This is why the leadership of green parties cannot support nuclear energy even though opposing it is compl…

European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Truthfully, the best argument for nuclear power is an extremely unpleasant one: a bit of radioactive contamination (an immediate and visceral threat) is a small price to pay for the emissions offset (still a somewhat abstract and distant threat). The numbers check out but it is undeniably ghoulish.

But pretending people are motivated by sheer hippie-foolishness is just an ignorant ad hominem. It is not “completely nonsensical” to oppose nuclear power, even if the argument is badly flawed. Chernobyl was a traumatic event for many Europeans and they are correct to be suspicious of claims that a proposed nuclear technology is actually safe.

Being so condescending and dismissive doesn’t help anyone.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#43

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #7

elric wrote: post #3

And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years, when - to quote Alex Steffen - we're not yet ready for what's already happened. https://alexsteffen.substack.com/p/were-not-yet-ready-for-wh...

There is an inconvenient truth we all avoid when we throw out climate change. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change. If you stopped all Canadians from producing any greenhouse gases the wildfires will continue and no one will have noticed. When two countries are producing the vast majority you are at their mercy. If Canada wants to bully, bribe or shame a country into submission it has to get bigger and…

> "On the other hand you can't produce all of your products in China and try to shame when they have higher co2 levels."

This is an important point that more people need to understand. That is, when a country outsources their manufacturing the associated pollution production goes with it.

China et al don't only have cheap labor, their environmental protections are also less stringent. So when, for example, the USA claims it has reduced X or Y it has often simply moved that off shore.

Put another way, that smog in Beijine - that so many in the West are fond of chastising - was Made For America, and others.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#44

Post by macinjosh » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

elric wrote: post #3

And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years, when - to quote Alex Steffen - we're not yet ready for what's already happened. https://alexsteffen.substack.com/p/were-not-yet-ready-for-wh...

It is difficult to care when we’ve been told since the 90s that the brink is only x years away and then nothing happens. Canada is huge 180 wildfires is nothing. The fact is that there is no peer reviewed scientific study that proves there are increased wildfires due to climate change. Assuming it is makes you the same as the folks who just assumed the pandemic was fake. It is anti-science.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#45

Post by typon » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #7

elric wrote: post #3

And yet we'll continue to treat climate change as an inconvenience that can be addressed in 20 years, when - to quote Alex Steffen - we're not yet ready for what's already happened. https://alexsteffen.substack.com/p/were-not-yet-ready-for-wh...

There is an inconvenient truth we all avoid when we throw out climate change. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change. If you stopped all Canadians from producing any greenhouse gases the wildfires will continue and no one will have noticed. When two countries are producing the vast majority you are at their mercy. If Canada wants to bully, bribe or shame a country into submission it has to get bigger and…

Here come the 'China bad' bots without a hint of self awareness about the emissions/capita of almost every single western country, let alone the disasters like Gulf of Mexico on fucking fire right now.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#46

Post by rglover » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

AlmaElma wrote: post #40

rglover wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What people in the West fail to understand is that in order for society to improve (and currently, remain stable), you need cheap, reliable energy. Renewables—seemingly, the proposed alternatives (wind and solar)—are neither cheap nor reliable. They're also dependent…

> (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). can you point me to something trustworthy that proves this point? I am not too much into the topic of nuclear energy but the last time I spent a night or two reading up on it the waste part still felt like a huge drawback.

The most trustworthy research I've read [0]/watched [1] is by Gwyneth Cravens.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/03...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKtIs10R6Q (hosted by the Long Now Foundation)

Though a bit thin on info, this page from the DoE is interesting (links to some more in-depth stuff that I haven't read yet): https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#47

Post by vegetablepotpie » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

heron88 wrote: post #5

One practical solution to climate change may be to shut everything down for one day each week, kind of like some places did in response to the pandemic. Close all non-essential business, restrict all non-essential travel, etc. In addition to giving our planet a much needed day off each week, it’d probably go a long way towards improving our mental health.

I think people would shift their emissions to different days of the week. During Covid, I could not work from home, so the office made each person take a different day off in the week to reduce concurrent people working by 20%. We would then work 10 hour days. I shifted all my chores and errands to my day off.

Restrictions are a political non-starter. We need carbon neutral ways for people to go about their daily lives, solar and wind electricity production, electric cars, jet fuel produced by taking carbon from the air and assembling it into long chains.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#48

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

rglover wrote: post #41

Retric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China dropped from 80% coal in 2010 to 57.7% in 2019. China’s exponential increase in electricity production means they don’t have nearly as many old coal power plants, but looking at what their building today is very promising.

And? Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching thesis is to limit things that produce CO2 altogether, this statistic is irrelevant when contrasted with their actions.

The percentage might be lower but if the whole is expanding enough the lower percentage might be greater that the previous.

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#49

Post by curuinor » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

rglover wrote: post #38

curuinor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the _numbers_ say nuclear energy costs about $150/MWh and utility-scale solar costs $24/MWh. Moreover, nuclear costs are going up even in places where they can and will ignore planning commission things like the PRC and solar costs are going down.

Now address the reliability issue. Cost is only one factor.

solar + batteries is $40/mwh?

Re: Canada battles more than 180 wildfires with hundreds dead in heat wave

#50

Post by kergonath » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

xroche wrote: post #19

curiousgal wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile some EU nations are opposing the classification of nuclear energy as green for ESG purposes.. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-four-others-...

This is even more hilarious: Germany oppose nuclear, which is the greenest energy source in terme of emissions, but managed to get funding to use "green" gas: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...

It’s fine. They are going to get vegan gas from Greenpeace. I wish I were joking.