Live data from Hacker News

Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

latimes.com

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#111

internal consumption engines (ICE), are rapidly becoming niche power sources sodium batteries and solar pv, will take over most of the worlds grids quite quickly now, there are no bariers left any country that resists will be left behind and suffer the consequences of uncompetitive costs

The remaining barriers elsewhere are often policy related.

There are many examples across the world where countries are doing very sub optimal things that simply don't make any economical sense. Germany has a lot of industry close to where coal used to be mined that is very energy intensive that is now being powered with expensive gas. Likewise, instead of using electrical heat pumps, most of their buildings still use gas boilers. Worse, they are not even fixing that in new buildings they build.

The UK has lots of wind power. But it prices its electricity based on the highest cost generation on the grid, which is usually gas. So, data centers get built close to London because the electricity isn't any cheaper in Scotland where all the clean renewable power is. And since they have too much of that, they actually just curtail it instead of giving a little discount to the locals (or just pricing it negatively and paying them to consume the power). So, like the Germans, the Scots also use gas for heating their houses.

Germany has a few million apartment blocks. They pretty much all run on gas. There is no plan to fix that. You might have noticed that gas is really expensive and has to be imported in LNG form as of a few years ago. That's costing many billions per year. Even if they would build gas power plants and converted all those buildings to use electrical heat pumps, it would still save billions in less imported gas (heat pumps are amazingly efficient). And of course they have a lot of frequently curtailed wind power as well. Germany is too busy spending money on gas to fix the problem that they need so much gas.

Policy changes could straighten inefficiencies like these out in a relatively short time. But those are controversial because high prices mean high profits for incumbent companies. So governments are dragging their feet and are not doing anything about this. Those big companies are lobbying to protect their profits. And the fossil fuel industry is cheering them along and pitching fantasy schemes about hydrogen to delay their inevitable demise. The public spending on that is insane if you understand how piss poor the economics around hydrogen are. Incentives are completely misaligned, policy prevents a lot of otherwise very rational/economical action, and a lot of that is perpetuated by companies that thrive on the expensive status quo and the politicians they have in their pocket.

The current crisis in the Gulf is probably going to accelerate a lot of policy changes by quite a lot. Nothing like a good crisis to force some changes.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0] If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation, it'…

It is beyond shameful how Westerners misallocate the blame for pollution, using misleading statistics. India has ~17% of the world's population. That it only produces 7% of global emissions means it is contributing far, far, far less than whatever country you possibly come from in relative terms, so at that point you are besmirching it solely for the crime of having a larger population than your country. China, while…

> "solely for the crime of having a larger population than your country"

I think there's an interesting question here. Perhaps having a larger population is indeed a bad thing, and should be considered as such?

(Yes, India's fertility rate, like many other countries, is dropping quickly)

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#113
post #57
post #32

Interesting that Colombia is currently powering more than 70% of their electrical consumption on hydropower. They currently have about 65 TWh of hydropower capacity; the total feasible generation potential is around 200 TWh. Makes then an interesting country to host such talks.

Good for them, but for most of the world there are no good hydropower locations left. And even when they exist building them is a local ecological disaster.

Maybe they will have to divert their hydropower funds into solar or wind.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change doesn't divvy impact based on per capita usage. And large countries and blocs like the US, China, EU, India, etc would survive in a world with significant climate crises. So the incentive to change doesn't exist. And this is why the world will burn.

Out of these two, only EU and US are showing reluctance to change quickly. Both China and India depend heavily on imported fossil fuels and for them solar is as much of a sovereignty issues as it is pollution, and then climate.

The EU also depends heavily on imported fossil fuels. They just have more politicians that have been bought off.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially the Ukraine war got at least parts of Europe started, then adding Trumps mess on top but keeps the ball rolling. I've heard a lot of people being critical of wind turbines, calling them ugly and wanting nothing to do with them. After the Ukraine war started I remember driving into town, seeing the five massive wind turbines at the harbour, providing three time the power the city needs, and thinking "not onl…

Wind turbines are ugly. But I'll take ugly for free energy. It's such an obvious tradeoff. I can deal with ugly. Energy is much harder to do without. Anyone who would give up free energy just because it's ugly is someone who needs to touch grass. By the way, wind turbines off the coast of one of Trump's golf properties in Scotland are the reason he keeps trying to ban wind turbines.

> Wind turbines are ugly.

Are they? I mean, that's very much a taste thing. I think they're pretty nifty looking, especially the enormous modern ones with blades longer than airliner wings. Great products of industry and engineering have their own beauty, and these are definitely on the list with stuff like the Great Wall or Hoover Dam, IMHO.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#116
post #99
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of South America has worked like this for decades. Hydropower is king even in Venezuela. It's altruistic on their part, but it may have reduced their long-term economic growth. Viewed in terms of GDP per capita, South America is a laggard. But if you change the denominator and look at GDP per kWh (energy intensity) they are surprisingly close to the rich world. There is a hidden upside to all this hydro: it coul…

Do you have a source for GDP/kWh? Last time I was curious I dumped some raw stats (copied from wikipedia) into excel and venezuela was among the bottom three. I recall being surprised that there wasn't any strong correlation between GDP/kWh and any other obvious metric like technological development, population, land size, climate, etc.

It's on Wikipedia, sorted backwards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_in...

Venezuela is an unusual case because their economy has been a disaster for the last half decade. And I agree that the data aren't so straightforward.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#117
post #10
post #5

Absolutely hilarious to me that the biggest catalyst toward global attention to renewables in the last two decades is Trump's ridiculous adventure in the gulf.

I would argue that subsidized solar panels and batteries from China are the the most important factor. If renewables weren’t economically competitive we’d see approximately zero deployment.

Yes but you could argue that one key driving force behind their policies is the knowledge that a Republican president was going to mess up their oil supply sooner or later.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the crisis will get much, much worse before ordinary people go "Wait, so, we're all going to die? How do we prevent that?" and the idea that it's too late isn't compatible with their model of the world so they will reach for increasingly crude "solutions" to what they have belatedly realised is a dire situation. It might I suppose be fun to catalogue, what are the priorities? Do we kill all the poor peo…

My naive understanding is that climate change poses no real risk of human extinction, or even anything approaching it, at least not for centuries or longer. Which isn’t to say that the high cost of climate change is something we should shrug and just pay, especially because it will fall on the poorest. But c’mon now, you’re being wildly overdramatic, and that doesn’t actually help our ability to deal with the threat.

Extinction isn't a mechanical consequence but a cultural one. Each generation of future humans learn that their ancestors squandered better conditions, and their offspring will definitely experience even worse conditions and they despair and have net fewer kids. We're not altering the climate for a few years, or a few decades, or even a few centuries, but more like millennia.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My naive understanding is that climate change poses no real risk of human extinction, or even anything approaching it, at least not for centuries or longer. Which isn’t to say that the high cost of climate change is something we should shrug and just pay, especially because it will fall on the poorest. But c’mon now, you’re being wildly overdramatic, and that doesn’t actually help our ability to deal with the threat.

Extinction isn't a mechanical consequence but a cultural one. Each generation of future humans learn that their ancestors squandered better conditions, and their offspring will definitely experience even worse conditions and they despair and have net fewer kids. We're not altering the climate for a few years, or a few decades, or even a few centuries, but more like millennia.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that the human population will decline to anything approaching extinction levels due to people’s attitudes about the environment. To the contrary, we have the population that we have today because humans reproduce in spite of horrible conditions.

Re: Colombia hosts talks on exiting fossil fuels as global energy crisis deepens

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of that comment is not that the talking is happening, it's that the hope of action isn't going to be blocked by industry-captured and plain moronic countries like Saudia Arabia and US, respectively. Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point. They can also help build economies of scale, and take advantage of the myriad economic ben…

> Even if these countries are a smaller part of the climate affecting processes, any forward motion is good at this point China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0] If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation, it'…

> If the world's 3 largest polluters (even if two of them are heavily investing in GreenTech) who represent ~54% of global emissions are not interested in the conversation

Even if India and China went 0 carbon today the world will continue heating due to historic emissions. The US and Europe account for 54% of cumulative CO2 emissions. [1]

Not to mention there would be no conversation without China's manufacturing prowess that has made solar panels and batteries so cheap.

> the larger countries know they can eat the cost of climate change

I'm curious how you think India will "eat the cost" of losing most of its freshwater.[2] And if think you it's feasible to do so (which again, I don't see how), then it's even more important that they develop their economy to "eat the cost" right? You can't fault them for doing everything they can to grow their economy. It's not like anyone else is going 0 carbon either, and they're the most vulnerable large country.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...

2. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/himalayas-melting-c...

Post reply on HN