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

We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#131

Post by prewett »

titzer wrote: post #57
rootusrootus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just a reminder that all this car infrastructure is max ~100 years old 100 years ago we had one third the population we have today. Undoing that kind of development in another 100 years is plausible, but I suspect the oil problem will have resolved itself around that time anyway. And installing the same size network of public transit is far more expensive than paving that many miles of roads. Vastly, incredibly, in…

> Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. I don't know why you chose to exaggerate here, but rail lines are +/- the same cost per mile as interstate highway, and that's without the economies-of-scale benefit that comes from there being 100x the number of interstate miles. They're also vastly cheaper in terms of materials; the cost is mainly not materials. Concrete production is also extremely CO2 and energ…

It looks like it takes 1500 tons of concrete per mile of highway, and a ton of concrete produces 900 kg of CO2, which I will estimate to be 1 ton of CO2. So, 1500 tons of CO2 / mile of highway. It is said to last 60 years, so 25 tons CO2 / year.

It appears to take somewhere between 115 - 215 tons of steel per mile of highway track, but you're going to want double track if you're comparing to highways, so 200 - 400 tons of steel. Steel produces somewhere between 1 - 3 tons of CO2 per ton of steel depending on how it is produced. So say 300 tons of steel at 2 tons CO2 / 1 ton of steel. So 600 tons of CO2 per mile of railroad track. Track lasts from 2 - 40 years, so if we say 20 years on average, we get 30 tons / year.

Maybe highways don't last 60 years, or track lasts longer than 20. Also, if you are thinking of high speed passenger rail, it uses a lot of concrete so that it can be on an elevated track. But it looks like concrete highways and railroads are comparable as fair as CO2 from construction. Certainly rail isn't so "vastly" better that we need to be concerned about phalanxes of FUD.

Now, operating costs in terms of CO2 probably favor railroads pretty heavily, at least for freight. Since passenger rails is a lot less dense in terms of cargo, the story for passenger rail might be different.

(These figures are sourced from asking DDG "co2 per ton concrete", etc)

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#132

Post by mrleinad »

Gasp0de wrote: post #100
ravenstine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.

And why would catastrophe not be a valid reason? How do you suggest we store nuclear waste for thousands of years? What if an accident happens (and they will happen, just like Fukushima and Tschernobyl) and huge amounts of land can't be used for ages? That might be an option for some sparsely populated areas but not for Europe for example. Also, renewables are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear.

What if an asteroid falls on your head right now? Better go live in an underground bunker, you can't run that risk!

Just implying that a threat involves not only the real damage it might cause, but also what's the likelihood it'll actually happen.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#133

Post by mikeyouse »

mrleinad wrote: post #129
mikeyouse wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as you know, solar proponents haven't analyzed sun availability in the regions that they're installing solar? Perhaps they have done the analysis and that's why they're spending billions of dollars installing them? The industry has seen something like 75% decreases in cost-per-watt installation costs in the past decade, I can assure you, they're doing the analysis.

Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doi…

Ah, got it. You're basing this on your feelings and baseless conspiracy theories rather than looking at any of the actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure that's being built. I get the distinct sense this conversation won't be productive for either of us, so farewell.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#134

Post by verall »

starkd wrote: post #127
spchampion2 wrote: post #7

> But this fallacy has been repeatedly exposed. For one, the organisations that are supposed to certify that indeed enough tree-planting has taken place do not have the tools to verify that the declared emissions will definitely be absorbed. Another problem is that many offsetting activities do not actually offset anything. > A recent investigation into the world’s largest carbon standard found that 94 percent of its…

I think the environmental movement went seriously awry by aligning itself with socialist political goals. Socialism is nothing more than a way to monopolize corporate power for tremendous profits. Climate ideals of limiting carbon also diverted attention from real-world pollution concerns - like harm from large-scale mining operations.

Can you expand on how a carbon credit market is aligned with socialism? I'm either not understanding the connection or what you're meaning.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#135

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Xymist wrote: post #113
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want cars to be an even barely acceptable alternative to public transport: - They should not be stuck in traffic jams - They should not kill children, pedestrians and cyclists - They should be electric without heavy and polluting batteries These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. > - Make a ticket cost the same as or…

The fixed costs of public transport options, given the significant investment of public money that they tend to represent, are not zero either. The marginal cost of a journey is far more salient to whether a given option is preferable to any given person. Traffic jams are an extremely variable issue and I would argue are directly analogous to being crammed onto a delayed train with a thousand other people who can bar…

> Traffic jams are an extremely variable issue

Variable? A single line of rail moves more people per hour that 6 lanes of highway - that's just physics.

Average speed of London traffic is 10 km/h while the new Elizabeth Line wooshes past at 90 km/h. It can cross London before your car gets 1/3 of the way.

A crowded train still moves at 90 km/h. Your car in a jam is personally comfortable (unless you need to take a piss), but doesnt move anywhere.

The idea that cars are comparable to public transport in situations of gridlock is preposterous.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#136

Post by dr_dshiv »

carapace wrote: post #104
dr_dshiv wrote: post #55

The article accuses greentech and carbon-credits of genocide: "While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad." That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the sci…

Have you seen Dr. Gwynne Dyer: "Geopolitics in a Hotter World" (Sept. 2010) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY Transcription: https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo... At one point he talks about the possibility of unilateral geoengineering, and he mentions the head of the Bangladesh Institute of Strategic Studies... - - - - FWIW I figure that a technological "magic bullet" might save o…

Sure seems tough to convince people to voluntarily consume less. Relying on that as a strategy seems… fraught.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#137

Post by starkd »

verall wrote: post #134
starkd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the environmental movement went seriously awry by aligning itself with socialist political goals. Socialism is nothing more than a way to monopolize corporate power for tremendous profits. Climate ideals of limiting carbon also diverted attention from real-world pollution concerns - like harm from large-scale mining operations.

Can you expand on how a carbon credit market is aligned with socialism? I'm either not understanding the connection or what you're meaning.

Comment was not specifically about carbon credit scheme.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#138

Post by ZeroGravitas »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #55

The article accuses greentech and carbon-credits of genocide: "While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad." That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the sci…

Reduce their GHG emissions, not their "lifestyle".

It's getting very boring listening to people confuse the two of those things.

Electric cars and heating are better. Electricity from renewables is better. Even if you totally ignore the GHG angle. Once you add that it's a no regret, no brainer decision, not a sacrifice.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#139

Post by thomasjb »

rootusrootus wrote: post #107
titzer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vastly, incredibly, insurmountably more expensive. I don't know why you chose to exaggerate here, but rail lines are +/- the same cost per mile as interstate highway, and that's without the economies-of-scale benefit that comes from there being 100x the number of interstate miles. They're also vastly cheaper in terms of materials; the cost is mainly not materials. Concrete production is also extremely CO2 and energ…

The best case is that running diesel trains along all the interstate routes would be cheaper than the interstates themselves. I'll give you that, it is probably true (or close enough). But the vehicle I use on the rails has to stay on rails, and the cost of running rails becomes significantly more expensive as density increases. Politically and economically both. And can you replace every last paved road in America w…

There's no compelling reason why you couldn't have your rails embedded in the roads, most likely for light tram-type vehicles in denser urban areas, although you could go heavier if you like. Then you can have both wheel and rail transport together.

As you're putting up pantographs for the trams, there's no reason to not also have trolleybuses using them. When you have a network density built up to less than 5 minutes walk to the nearest tram/trolleybus stop, with a good timetable for daytime, there is little reason to have any private transport for within-town transport. Add provision of freight carrying by tram (use passing loops and specially designed trams for carrying pallets or delivery cages) and the number of vehicles with good reason to be in the town decreases further.

As you get into lower density areas, it makes more sense to go for links between towns and villages by rail, with ICE or electric buses feeding in. There should be no more than 15 minutes walk for normal users to reach a bus stop (Note: all bus stops should be very nice, with roofs and walls that keep the rain out). In all rural and urban cases, there should be the option of an app or call button which summons a battery minivan (or trolleybus in suitably served areas) to a person's door at anytime, with confirmation after the length of time for estimated collection is received. Automated scheduling systems with 24 hour service for dispatching electric minivans at reasonable cost to the end user to a location would remove the need for a lot of car journeys.

The thing is, none of this requires new technology, and could be marketed as a jobs program alone. Automating parts would be nice, but there's no reason this couldn't have been done anywhere in say, 1920.

Re: We are ‘greening’ ourselves to extinction

#140

Post by mrleinad »

mikeyouse wrote: post #133
mrleinad wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doi…

Ah, got it. You're basing this on your feelings and baseless conspiracy theories rather than looking at any of the actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure that's being built. I get the distinct sense this conversation won't be productive for either of us, so farewell.

> actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure

Exclude the tax exemptions and subsidies given to those companies and then check if they're profitable or not.

Post reply on HN