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

Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

ckrapu.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 178 posts

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#161

Post by xbmcuser »

gmuslera wrote: post #149
xbmcuser wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The past decade does not matter as till this year consumption growth was more than renewables additions that has changed in 2023 and will accelerate from 2024. So the tipping point has just been reached add electrification of transport and heating and fossil fuel use will come down a lot faster than people owning fossil fuel reserves would like for the world to realize. In 2024 we will add almost more solar than all…

The problem is not how much solar we add, but that it is not corresponded with a reduction of demand of fossil fuels. Not sure about 2024, but at least for the years of the ourworldindata info it was still on its way up. And the solution is not just maintaining the same levels of the previous year, but dropping to zero far before there is no way out anymore.

Ah no it is we are not eating fossil fuel it is used to produce energy if an alternative cheaper source of energy comes up world will start replacing fossil fuels. You will see the effect of this in the next 3-4 years as solar and battery price out fossil fuels for electricity first and 10+ years when they start pricing out fossil fuels for other energy use. Where as global warming I am pessimistic about it I think we have already crossed the point of no return for me solar and cheap electricity would allow humans to survive easier in a warming world.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#163

Post by hedora »

naasking wrote: post #136
hedora wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our car can run our all-electric house for days. We have more than one car. It’s not clear to me how much the power grid will matter in ten years. I can imagine cities using substations to route N solar installations to M bidirectional EV chargers, I guess. For places as or less dense than suburbs, it’s not obvious that it makes sense to bother.

The power grid will always be absolutely essential. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise.

Our home battery has had ~ 10 minutes of scheduled downtime in three years, and the solar array we put in (which was limited in size by our power company) would be enough for 90+% of days. The grid has had 30+ days of downtime in that time.

If we had it fill the south half of our roof, that’d jump to 99-100%. For the remaining one percent, we could just drive to a fast charger to pick up enough electricity to run the house for 2-3 days in complete darkness.

The power grid keeps burning cities down, and then they pass the cost on to consumers.

Off grid is already more reliable than the grid, and the price of it keeps halving. At the same time, extreme weather events keep increasing the cost of the grid and lowering its reliability.

If the power company would bury their lines, then all of these issues would go away, but that will never happen with our current political system.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#164

Post by CalRobert »

7speter wrote: post #154
CalRobert wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within a given area rich people tend to use more carbon. Poor people are less likely to be taking international flights, etc. Annoyingly, one big problem is that we've allowed NIMBY's to make it illegal to build homes near jobs, so people who can't afford homes near work are often stuck driving long distances to work through no fault of their own.

Rich people can afford electric cars while poor people won’t be able to, even if the car is used, through the next decade. If anything, SUV prices will drop like a rock… Also, rich people can decide to pay for expensive upgrades to their homes (switching to heatpumps, upgrading electrical wiring for efficient solar/wind usage, solar panels, high voltage chargers for electrical vehicles), while poorer home owners (man…

We agree, this is why I am not a huge fan of subsidies for EV's. Among other things, we should be encouraging fewer cars of all sorts. I do like ebike subsidies though, and better public transport.

Similarly, it can make sense to help people improve their home's efficiency, and in some places grants are available for this (insulation, etc.). Though in many cases you're using renters' taxes to make the homeowner wealthier, which isn't really fair.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#165

Post by rjvs »

sqeaky wrote: post #85
ckrapu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One downside: you have to ship all the carbon to the coast. Transport is a non-negligible consideration for all of this. Ideally, you just grow a ton of switchgrass in northern US / Canada / Siberia and store it nearby.

This is a downside, but big flat boats floating down river don't seem like big carbon releasers, bonus points if they use solar/wind to get back up river.

Wouldn’t the bonus points be better allocated to making the boats from the carbon you’re wanting to sequester, so they don’t have to go back up-river?

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#166

Post by rjvs »

philipkglass wrote: post #7

I'm going to share my own insane idea for drawing down atmospheric CO2. Capture CO2 as biomass or with direct air capture. Pyrolyze biomass to charcoal or use the Bosch reaction to recover pure carbon from CO2 chemically [1]. Then combine the carbon with silicon to form silicon carbide via the Acheson process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheson_process Silicon carbide is extraordinarily resistant to mechanical ero…

I’d like to have one delivered to my neighbour on Venus please, curious what would happen.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#167

Post by adrianN »

hedora wrote: post #163
naasking wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power grid will always be absolutely essential. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise.

Our home battery has had ~ 10 minutes of scheduled downtime in three years, and the solar array we put in (which was limited in size by our power company) would be enough for 90+% of days. The grid has had 30+ days of downtime in that time. If we had it fill the south half of our roof, that’d jump to 99-100%. For the remaining one percent, we could just drive to a fast charger to pick up enough electricity to run the…

Do these figures include heat and hot water? In my climate these are the big energy consumers.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#168

Post by jogjayr »

lumb63 wrote: post #125
standeven wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s why carbon taxes are so beneficial. It’s a shame they’ve been villainized and are unpopular.

I am a fan of a carbon tax, but one issue I’ve never seen addressed by proponents is the regressive structure of the tax. Oftentimes the poorest areas are using the most carbon-intensive energy sources and thus stand to be hurt the most by a carbon tax. There is little the average poor person can do to avoid this Similar logic applies for, e.g. EV subsidies - the people most capable of dishing out the cash to secure…

In Canada we get a carbon tax rebate, fixed per-head. A family of four will get up to $1800 in 2024-25, and rural areas get more than everyone else. High income households consume more of everything than low income households overall, so they still pay more carbon tax in absolute terms. Meanwhile the tax rebate is not income based. It balances out some of the regressiveness of the carbon tax.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/can...

EV subsidies can help build demand for the vehicles. As adoption grows, charging becomes more widely available and manufacturing costs come down with volume.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#169

Post by naasking »

realusername wrote: post #148
naasking wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't crunched the numbers on this, but CO2 air capture is incredibly inefficient, and it consumes energy which itself releases heat. So if the amount of CO2 you capture reduces heat by X degrees but you release Y degrees in energy consumption to achieve that where Y > X, that would be one interpretation of "thermodynamically unviable". It seems implausible to me but not impossible.

The effect of the heat released in the air is negligible compared to the greenhouse effect. CO2 capture might be economically unviable but nothing physically prevents it from working.

> The effect of the heat released in the air is negligible compared to the greenhouse effect.

And the amount of CO2 gathered by direct air capture is also negligible, so you can't just hand wave a position that one negligible amount is obviously greater than another.

Re: Solving climate change by abusing thermodynamic scaling laws

#170

Post by naasking »

hedora wrote: post #163
naasking wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power grid will always be absolutely essential. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise.

Our home battery has had ~ 10 minutes of scheduled downtime in three years, and the solar array we put in (which was limited in size by our power company) would be enough for 90+% of days. The grid has had 30+ days of downtime in that time. If we had it fill the south half of our roof, that’d jump to 99-100%. For the remaining one percent, we could just drive to a fast charger to pick up enough electricity to run the…

This argument is undermined by survivorship bias. I also don't believe the power grid keeps "burning cities down", this seems very specific to the area you live and the competency of the local government.
Post reply on HN