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

The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#31

Post by nebula8804 »

malermeister wrote: post #28
nebula8804 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc. Or they might drag their tractors into the highways and block off all access to the city in protest. I feel like I had this same conversation against a presenter at CCC recently. Do people really not see the backlash brewing against the left for proposing these ideas onto others?

If we don't do good things out of fear of backlash from regressives, we have already lost.

You gotta sneak it in a way that does not affect the day to day world of the normies. Thats how anything meaningful gets done.

At least in the US it is done one of three ways

1: For corrupt stealing of funds, stuff a contract into some other bill that marginally helps people. Example: The "Inflation Reduction Act" is 270+ pages. Its filled with giveaways here and there that wont be noticed by people directly, it will just eat away at them longterm in the form of higher taxes and inflation. They could totally enact small rule changes here and there to curb emissions in all of these bills and if you do it over an extended time period people wont notice the small changes.

2: Have the private sector solve it so that way people can "feel" like they can refuse. But what happens is that the market takes over and eventually this option is what people are stuck with since it becomes the cheapest. We are seeing this with EVs and hopefully we will reach a point where EVs get cheap enough and chargers become ubiquitous enough that the flywheel effect that keeps gas prices low will slow down and it enters a death spiral.

3: Have a national tragedy and use the opportunity to ram through a piece of legislation to affect massive change by forcing the opposition to have to take an unpopular side. Examples: LBJ pushing the Civil Rights Act after JFK's assassination, Patriot act after 9/11 etc.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#32

Post by lm28469 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #9
okokwhatever wrote: post #5

Bullshit. EU moving production to other countries is not to slash pollution. I know there will be academic explanations to convince us this is the way but once common people start to face real life problems (energy cost, food security issues, layoffs because of industry relocations, etc) they will rise the flag of revolution. Unless this is the expected result...

I wonder what you suspect the effects of widespread sustained climate change will be? Of the 'real life' problems coming down the pipe, energy cost, food security, and industrial disturbances are the happy, rosy ones.

Moving production abroad makes all of what you mention harder in times of crisis

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#33

Post by phicoh »

nebula8804 wrote: post #27
phicoh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes regulation can help an industry forward quite a bit. For example when a cleaner technology requires massive investments, but nobody wants to be first. When there is a clear cut-off date, like with ICE cars in the EU, then manufacturers can justify the investments and go ahead. At the same time, a lot of spending on green technologies often means a lot of local jobs. Which can be good for the economy if the…

>But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc. Or they might drag their tractors into the highways and block off all access to the city in protest. I feel like I had this same conversation against a presenter at CCC recently. Do people really not see the backlash brewing against the left for proposing these ideas onto others?

I don't know what farmers are up against in all countries. There are certainly lots of things wrong in the overall markets for agricultural goods.

However, in The Netherlands it basically seems that they protest for a right to pollute. Nature gets destroyed by to much nitrogen in the soil, to much polluted water. Bad water levels to support farmers, etc. Too much use of pesticides and herbicides that end up everywhere.

You can call it left to fight against pollution. In that case, I'm happy to be left.

There is an underlying problem where farmers have to work on large scale because margins are to thin.

But then rhetoric starts. For example, consumers are blamed for not wanting to pay more for produce. But conveniently left out is what about goods that get exported. You can hardly blame Dutch consumers for not paying more for goods that get exported out of The Netherlands.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#34

Post by zihotki »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25
ztcfegzgf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry but this is not realistic. i looked at the [2] document and it's just a dream. it's written in the style of "currently EU consumes this much energy, we project this to grow to that much until 2030/2040, we currently produce this much energy from renewables, so we need to multiply the amount of renewables with the correct number". completely ignores the largest problem with solar/wind, storage. it just says that…

You are looking at individual countries. Europe has a transmission network, as well as battery storage, pumped storage, hydro generation, wind, solar and some nuclear. You keep adding renewables and storage, and keep retiring fossil generators. Europe has enough wind potential to power the entire world, for example. It's not impossible, it's math. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false https://www…

That doesn't help when you have a big storm, sunless/windless winter or any other combination of factors covering big area. Plus fragility of the supply, limitations of power lines and network, etc. As soon as you add more real life factors it doesn't look that promising. To have a potential doesn't imply to have a feasibility.

I have nothing agains further improving the network and load-balancing it smarter, but it's just in my interest to have some local duplication of energy generation. Or with my heatpump being out of service I may freeze or will have to buy a generator.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#35

Post by toomuchtodo »

zihotki wrote: post #34
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are looking at individual countries. Europe has a transmission network, as well as battery storage, pumped storage, hydro generation, wind, solar and some nuclear. You keep adding renewables and storage, and keep retiring fossil generators. Europe has enough wind potential to power the entire world, for example. It's not impossible, it's math. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false https://www…

That doesn't help when you have a big storm, sunless/windless winter or any other combination of factors covering big area. Plus fragility of the supply, limitations of power lines and network, etc. As soon as you add more real life factors it doesn't look that promising. To have a potential doesn't imply to have a feasibility. I have nothing agains further improving the network and load-balancing it smarter, but it'…

I don't disagree, fossil gas generators will be the last fossil generators to go (gas peakers and oil are already uneconomical compared to battery storage [1] [2] [3]). We're just arguing time horizon and deployment trajectories [4]. Certainly, don't tear down efficient fossil gas generators until they're no longer needed, but keep building renewables, storage, and transmission like our lives depend on it, because they do.

[1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/12/battery-storage-syste...

[2] https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources...

[3] https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...

[4] https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/world-may-be-on-track-for-tri...

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#36

Post by bryanlarsen »

zihotki wrote: post #34
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are looking at individual countries. Europe has a transmission network, as well as battery storage, pumped storage, hydro generation, wind, solar and some nuclear. You keep adding renewables and storage, and keep retiring fossil generators. Europe has enough wind potential to power the entire world, for example. It's not impossible, it's math. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?wind=false&solar=false https://www…

That doesn't help when you have a big storm, sunless/windless winter or any other combination of factors covering big area. Plus fragility of the supply, limitations of power lines and network, etc. As soon as you add more real life factors it doesn't look that promising. To have a potential doesn't imply to have a feasibility. I have nothing agains further improving the network and load-balancing it smarter, but it'…

There has never been a one-hour window over the last 30 years where it hasn't been sunny or windy somewhere in Europe.

Obviously having all of Europe's electricity being generated on a single corner of Spain isn't feasible. But nobody is talking about 100% wind & solar. Hydro, storage, geothermal & nuclear can all add diversity and reliability. This can be modelled. We cannot get to 100% reliability but nothing can; local distribution SPOF bottlenecks limit reliability 99.99% regardless. And 99.99% is possible.

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#39

Post by coldtea »

menschmanfred wrote: post #22
coldtea wrote: post #2

Proposing things is free after all, and few of the politicians of 2024 will be there in 2040 to be called about it, and even if they are, they can blame it on previous office holders and whatever... This is as "trustworthy" as the "Only sell EVs by 2035" EUs proposal, and Musk's mission to Mars.

Sooo your solution is to just do nothing at all?

My solution to the problem of pollution, or to the problem of vaccuous promises by politicians which is what I pointed at?

Re: The EU proposes slashing pollution 90% by 2040

#40

Post by gttrew »

Modern day regimes simply have the country's universities release a few research papers ahead of time popularizing and inventing problems that have a solution equal to the changes the dictators would like to see come into effect in the society. Who are we to say climate change is not real against the universities ? Or that we do not wish to be made poor and eat bugs to fix these problems because we see no evidence on the ground they exist ?
Post reply on HN