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

Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#61

Post by eldaisfish »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #7
profunctor wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?

I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.

natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it.

A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#62

Post by alex_young »

tomp wrote: post #42
thatcherc wrote: post #14

The main action advocated by the author here is to increase efficiency (in insulation, appliances, food production, transportation) as a means to curb CO2 emissions and slow climate change - all very important. Lately I've been reading Saul Griffith's book "Electrify" which proposes a different tack - "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly. Interestingly, doing so…

Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisati…

Why is using more energy important to you? Wouldn’t more efficient energy use equate to getting more production out of less fuel? That seems like a clear win to me.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#63

Post by tomp »

alex_young wrote: post #62
tomp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisati…

Why is using more energy important to you? Wouldn’t more efficient energy use equate to getting more production out of less fuel? That seems like a clear win to me.

Practical experience.

Products advertised as "energy saving" are almost invariably worse.

E.g. modern dishwashers use much less energy, but also take much longer (4 hours instead of 1 hour).

If there are products that are equivalent in functionality but use less energy (housing insulation? heat pumps?), I'm all for it.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#64

Post by tomp »

BobbyJo wrote: post #57
tomp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisati…

Pointing to a vague they makes for a very uninformative comment. I believe most people see a future where civilization progresses. There is just somewhat of a consensus, among left leaning people and groups of scientists, that we need to dial back energy usage short term, until the sources of that energy are moved away from fossil fuels. I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitut…

> I don't think a willingness to accept less energy for a decade or two, constitutes an anti-civilization agenda.

Sounds like "two weeks to flatten the curve". Very slippery slope. Expect a lot of people to oppose it (me included). Especially since there will invariable be different rules for the elites (same as with the pandemic).

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#65

Post by megaman821 »

alex_young wrote: post #62
tomp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisati…

Why is using more energy important to you? Wouldn’t more efficient energy use equate to getting more production out of less fuel? That seems like a clear win to me.

Depends on who you are talking about. Having no climate control to climate control will cost energy no matter how efficient the heat pump. No car to an electric car will cost energy.

For those who have all the that, the de-growth camp asks that people give up meat, down-size their houses and give up one of their cars. Maybe they should, but that will never win any popular support. The answer is always both though, we need to make things more efficient and produce more energy than ever using renewables.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#66

Post by alex_young »

tomp wrote: post #63
alex_young wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is using more energy important to you? Wouldn’t more efficient energy use equate to getting more production out of less fuel? That seems like a clear win to me.

Practical experience. Products advertised as "energy saving" are almost invariably worse. E.g. modern dishwashers use much less energy, but also take much longer (4 hours instead of 1 hour). If there are products that are equivalent in functionality but use less energy (housing insulation? heat pumps?), I'm all for it.

Almost certainly the computer anyone reading this thread on is an example of increased functionality with lower energy use than previous models. The same holds for automobiles (higher mpg) many drive to work, and several other things in daily life.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#67

Post by hgomersall »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #59
hgomersall wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody serious said the world was going to freeze. Most papers in the field from the 70s onwards were unambiguous about the risks of warming. There is no FUD except by deniers. Stop with the misinformation, this stuff is too important.

> Nobody serious said the world was going to freeze. Honestly, if I prove you wrong, will you apologize and retract your libel?

Apologies, my rhetoric got the better of the point, which is unambiguously that the majority of serious people said the world was going to warm. Certainly since the 70s and that was the case and the basic physics was established much earlier.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#68

Post by distances »

stickyricky wrote: post #60
distances wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least

Neither of those things matter for air exchange.

I don't think I then understood your comment about air quality concerns. What's the concern if ventilation works fine and energy efficiently?

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#69

Post by hgomersall »

stickyricky wrote: post #38
hgomersall wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).

And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.

Ventilation and insulation are orthogonal. The passivhaus standard puts ventilation front and centre and has exceptionally high efficiency targets overall.

Re: Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

#70

Post by throwaway-m3232 »

I think there is a contradiction: on one hand, consumption should be reduced for sustainable production. But I have not heard anything on reducing the work time. I do not think that there can be a consensus that asks to work more for less. It is not possible for some type of workers, who already work 12 h/day and have no savings.

Something should change in what work is, how production is organized and profit is produced or I do not see how else this contradiction can be resolved.

The work can be organized by reducing work time (workday) to produce all there is necessary for biological living. Say 4 h workday (see productivity growth on why this is possible), no wage cut, at production factors, construction, food, etc. This 4 hour workday will be enough for some good level of living. And everything else can be produced somehow else, not as work. Then it will not be necessary to keep production of some object only for the sake of paying for a house, thus consumption will slightly lower but work day will lower, too.

Post reply on HN