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

Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

briangitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 295 posts

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#121

Post by Gordonjcp »

tgflynn wrote: post #100

> But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas. Can someone explain the chemistry of this ? I thought perfect combustion produces CO2 and that burning natural gas is closer to that ideal than what you get with coal (where you also get CO and probably lots of other stuff). So I would expect that producing a given amount of energy by bur…

From a very simplistic "high school chemistry" point of view, coal is mostly carbon, natural gas is mostly hydrogen.

Burning coal will produce lots of carbon dioxide (and other nasties because of things like sulphur compounds but let's ignore that for now) and very little water. Burning methane will produce lots of water and carbon dioxide.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#122

Post by dogman144 »

I live in one of the beautiful western states where due to the wide open spaces, wind, and carbon reliance due to lack of many of their economic options, wind farms are taking off.

Up front, I get it. Wind and solar are likely a large part of how we avoid burning down the world. Without it, Climate change hits this area just as hard.

That said, wind farms built to preserve the environment aren’t exactly preserving natural spaces themselves.

They occupy huge acreage, and whatever unfortunate (read: low income and remote) town they get installed in is bearing the costs of a major environmental change by installing them.

During the day, 100s of these things occupy every horizon for about 30-40 mins of driving. During the night, they all (so all 300 of them across acres and acres and acres) blink red lights you can see for miles and miles.

It might be the only way out, but it’s not like a smoke stack or two occupying your skyline. The windmills become the skyline, and ruin the night sky which is part of what makes these places worth living in.

It comes down to I really dislike that the rural west and all its beauty is the location paying for the costs of a nationwide carbon mistake, and it’s paying in the way that changes completely what makes this area special.

If this is what it takes to not boil the ocean, these wind farm better go up in New York and Boston Harbor, Miami coast line, around DC, and in the Bay of the Bay Area. Or, we do solar farms. You’re going to have very disgruntled western states otherwise.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#123

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

treeman79 wrote: post #110
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. Are you claiming fossil fuels aren't limited? Also, oil peak is widely believed to have been reached already https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passe... If the cost of extraction rises due to oil and gas being more and more difficult to access (because it's limited, obviously), you could claim demand has peaked but it would still be due t…

There have been articles for many decades now that we are reaching the peak of what can be pulled out of the ground. That we will simply run out of oil. This is a lie. There is plenty of supply. This is the argument op is making. Whether to burn it or not is a different question.

>This is a lie. There is plenty of supply.

That is and never has been the crux of the matter. We need affordable supply.

If I have 10 apples to sell, 9 of them priced at $1, and the last one at $100 billion, I could also claim to have plenty of supply.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#124

Post by ZetaZero »

ShockTohp wrote: post #115
elil17 wrote: post #26

Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. >I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissionsduring the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas. Upgrading coal to gas is a great intermediate step. However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited…

But solar and wind are no where near sustainable, or efficient. They are extremely fragile and have serious detrimental effects on their local environment. Nuclear is the best option and gas is a massive improvement. The whole point of this article is that we are chasing a utopian ideal instead of actually fixing the problems. Once again, perfect is being the enemy of improvement.

How are solar and wind not sustainable or efficient? We've just recently hit the 20% mark here in the US.

I'm all for a smart blend of nuclear/wind/solar/etc to achieve clean energy

https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electr...

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#125

Post by Gordonjcp »

tpm wrote: post #46

> I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. > But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 60%) > has come from switching from coal to natural gas. But once you transition to natural gas, you can't go any lower with fossil fuels, while to stop warming we need to get to zero human-caused CO2 emissions, so clearly natural gas is not a viable solution.…

> while to stop warming we need to get to zero human-caused CO2 emissions, so clearly natural gas is not a viable solution.

Currently an immense source of greenhouse gases is offgassing by landfills. Burning that is a great way to turn those short hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide, which is comparatively benign.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#126

Post by helmholtz »

treeman79 wrote: post #110
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. Are you claiming fossil fuels aren't limited? Also, oil peak is widely believed to have been reached already https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passe... If the cost of extraction rises due to oil and gas being more and more difficult to access (because it's limited, obviously), you could claim demand has peaked but it would still be due t…

There have been articles for many decades now that we are reaching the peak of what can be pulled out of the ground. That we will simply run out of oil. This is a lie. There is plenty of supply. This is the argument op is making. Whether to burn it or not is a different question.

"Plenty of supply" and "peak oil" are not mutually exclusive

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#127

Post by TheBlight »

ZetaZero wrote: post #124
ShockTohp wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But solar and wind are no where near sustainable, or efficient. They are extremely fragile and have serious detrimental effects on their local environment. Nuclear is the best option and gas is a massive improvement. The whole point of this article is that we are chasing a utopian ideal instead of actually fixing the problems. Once again, perfect is being the enemy of improvement.

How are solar and wind not sustainable or efficient? We've just recently hit the 20% mark here in the US. I'm all for a smart blend of nuclear/wind/solar/etc to achieve clean energy https://electrek.co/2022/05/10/us-hits-a-record-20-of-electr...

How does solar work in the winter in northern latitudes?

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#129

Post by locallost »

The mandatory link on true financial costs of nuclear.

https://m.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-dea...

Germany's nuclear waste disposal will end up costing over 100 billion, the companies themselves shelled out a mere fraction of it, and the public is now officially on the hook for the rest.

I really don't get the nuclear argument. We are in a crisis, and yet it's being argued for a very expensive solution that will come online ... in a decade or two. If all goes according to plan, which currently is not really the case. We do not have the funds to go 100% nuclear now, so why not do the cheap and fast version that reduces the carbon footprint almost immediately? If it turns out 100% renewable is not possible, then build nuclear. Like I said, they won't all built in one go anyway.

Re: Chasing utopian energy: How I wasted 20 years of my life

#130

Post by colechristensen »

EricE wrote: post #50
elil17 wrote: post #26

Clever writing can let you argue for any viewpoint. That doesn’t make it true. >I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissionsduring the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas. Upgrading coal to gas is a great intermediate step. However, it’s not a long term solution because natural gas reserves are limited…

>natural gas reserves are limited People have been claiming peak oil since the 1930's. Yawn. > So green energy has supported economic and social development through electrification without adding new pollution sources. Except for the manufacture and disposal of these "green" sources. > Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. Solar and wind are cheaper? Ha! We already have problems recycling blades…

The peak oil producing month so far is November 2018. With COVID-19, and now war in Ukraine and an impending global recession combined with the progress of electric vehicles and solar production, it is entirely possible that this record will stand.
Post reply on HN