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

#131

Post by Retric » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

rglover wrote: post #117

Retric wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Coal power plants age. As their power demand has skyrocketed there are currently few 40+ year old coal power stations to be decommissioned. Looking at say 2050 the existing stock will mostly be replaced by whatever ratio they built between 2010 and 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country Solar in China went from 78 GW in 2016 to 254 GW 2020. The US had 40 GW of solar in 2016 and 75 GW in 2020…

Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?

Your assuming they are suddenly going to massively ramp up construction of coal power plants in a few years based on what?

Flip it around, does the US get a pass because they had a lot of really old coal power plants? In the last decade the US built a lot of Natural Gas power plants which sure isn’t as bad as coal, but they are hardly green. We’re falling behind on solar adoption, and wind is only slightly ahead of the global average.

Massive infrastructure changes take decades and we have arguably stagnated.

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

#132

Post by TMWNN » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #121

newleaf wrote: post #83

As an insurance policy, where would be the best places to live or buy land now given forecasted trends? I’m primarily thinking of the US, but interested any idea (well, maybe not Siberia…)

None. There's been lots of people in the past suggesting that Canada would be a good place to be in as the planet warmed. NOPE!

Such a claim was never accurate. The regions with good soil are already used. Northern Ontario isn't farmed because of climate, but because it's either muskeg or the Clay Belt. While the latter is good soil, all previous attempts to lure settlers failed because both muskeg and the Clay Belt are completely infested with black flies and mosquitos.

(Muskeg also covers Siberia.)

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

#133

Post by 908B64B197 » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 8:40 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…

Truth is, what we need is G7 wide import tariffs on goods produced in countries that are not trying to curb their emissions, along with quotas on visas issued to these nationals for as long as they keep pushing for dirty energy. [0]

This would need a much needed break to our domestic manufacturing that has to compete with this extremely cheap dirty foreign energy.

[0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...

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

#134

Post by 908B64B197 » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #126

I suspect in the coming years that Canada will have more trouble with wildfires than the U.S. For one, the population of all of B.C. is just a smidge over 5 million, or less than the SF Bay Area, which can strain emergency response and stability services if the active personnel is low to begin with. Secondly, B.C. is much less developed inland than the other west coast states, so many fires will be difficult if not i…

Canada is directly contributing to these events by exploiting some of the dirtiest oil on earth.

Of course, the current regime will deny any connection between forest fires, heatwaves and dirty oil. [0] [1]

Good thing the US divested out of the mega pipeline project they were trying to push out.

[0] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/04/news/fort-mcmurr...

[1] https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-didnt-justin-tru...

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

#135

Post by 908B64B197 » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

nicklecompte wrote: post #42

jcfrei wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pretendin…

> European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima

France does. Safest nuclear on earth.

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

#136

Post by rglover » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #131

rglover wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?

Your assuming they are suddenly going to massively ramp up construction of coal power plants in a few years based on what? Flip it around, does the US get a pass because they had a lot of really old coal power plants? In the last decade the US built a lot of Natural Gas power plants which sure isn’t as bad as coal, but they are hardly green. We’re falling behind on solar adoption, and wind is only slightly ahead of t…

Suddenly, no. But they're not signaling intent to stop building them, either. If they're actively building now and saying they're going to build more, the logical conclusion is that they're going to build more over time.

And you're misdirecting. The U.S. doesn't get a pass. We're arguably one of the biggest targets that everyone points their fingers at (and domestically, shames its own population for relying on those energy sources).

My entire point is that the very things being obsessed over (solar and wind) are simply not feasible at the scale and capacities required to sustain our current civilization. The alternative is either nuclear, or significant population reduction (read: death, or, the logical conclusion of large swaths of humans either being denied access to energy or being priced out).

Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is less of a moral one and more of a mathematical one. E.g., the best solar panels only have a 20-23% effectiveness rate (https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj). That means they cannot pull in ~80% of the solar power available. Batteries to supplement this mean more not less fossil fuels for production and mining of rare earth metals (and let's not even get into the human rights issues at those mines). Wind mills can't be built with windmill energy (and only work when the wind blows which is too varied to call reliable). Plain and simple: these alternative energy sources are not capable of replacing our existing energy needs wholesale without introducing significant chaos and likely, death.

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

#137

Post by curiousgal » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #110

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-...

Nuclear isn't truly green. It still involved mining, and industry that as of today does burn lots of hydrocarbons. Nuclear is certainly better, but it isn't 100% green. It could become green if we can manage to electrify mining and/or get uranium from alternative sources such as water. While I am a fan of nuclear power I don't think it is perfect nor totally carbon free. True renewables, when they are working, are st…

I mean obviously it's not green but this particular classification is about financial investment. The bar for what is considered green could be lowered to encourage investment into those sectors.

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

#138

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

rocknor wrote: post #95

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed , but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.

We do have that data: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...

Thanks very much! Following through a list of source links this seems to be the primary source for that data:

https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9/3247/2012/bg-9-3247-201...

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

#139

Post by Retric » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 11:10 PM UTC

rglover wrote: post #136

Retric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assuming they are suddenly going to massively ramp up construction of coal power plants in a few years based on what? Flip it around, does the US get a pass because they had a lot of really old coal power plants? In the last decade the US built a lot of Natural Gas power plants which sure isn’t as bad as coal, but they are hardly green. We’re falling behind on solar adoption, and wind is only slightly ahead of t…

Suddenly, no. But they're not signaling intent to stop building them, either. If they're actively building now and saying they're going to build more, the logical conclusion is that they're going to build more over time. And you're misdirecting. The U.S. doesn't get a pass. We're arguably one of the biggest targets that everyone points their fingers at (and domestically, shames its own population for relying on those…

The efficiency of solar panels is practically irrelevant. For scale for ~20,000$ of land in Arizona (60 acres) is getting ~240,000 kw of energy in full sun. At 2c/kWh and 10% efficiency you pay for that land in ~42 hours of full sun. Land costs are rarely more than 0.1% of total costs.

Anyway, nobody is going to run a major grid on 100% solar power because hydro and wind are cheaper than batteries. But let’s think pessimistic worst case. You want 50% over supply of solar so you never have to worry about long term storage (as in 1/3 of all solar is wasted).

That’s 3c/kWh. Batteries aren’t 100% efficient and degrade with use so let’s say 55% of power is provided directly via solar (much higher demand in day) and 45% of power is provided from solar fed batteries. If 1 kWh from a battery adds 10c the equation it’s roughly 3c + 10c * 45% = 7.5c/kWh.

Which is very close to what base load coal costs except because we’re using batteries which also covers peaking power plants. Frankly coal is only surviving in China because of how long it’s talking to build cheaper alternatives.

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

#140

Post by ipaddr » Tue, Jul 06, 2021, 12:09 AM UTC

hhw wrote: post #94

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no policy that can change that fact. That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. - put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade) - put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) - provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects

Why focus on China and India, when on a per capita basis they have a small fraction of the carbon footprint that we have in Canada and the US? When we can get our per capita carbon footprint down below theirs, then maybe we'll have a right to criticize their environmental policies. But in the meantime if we're being at all objective, trying to point a finger at them makes us look like absolute hypocrites.

Because removing Canada completely doesn't begin to solve the issue. You need to look at total pollution by country because decisions are made at the country level.