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

Europe's fires are just the start

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 365 posts

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#191

Post by OKRainbowKid »

throw0101d wrote: post #87
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

> This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? Recent report on restarting German nuclear: > The easiest group of reactors to restart could produce electricity at an average of €37 per megawatt-hour before the end of 2031.The most difficult restarts could produce electricity at roughly €58 p…

Okay, and how does compare to other options? And do you have sources without an obvious conflict of interest?

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#192

Post by OKRainbowKid »

palata wrote: post #146
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

One problem with renewables is that they rely a lot on electronics, which relies a lot on petrochemicals (just to build them) and on globalisation. In a world without abundant oil, can we keep producing and maintaining as many solar panels as we need? Nuclear is different in that regard.

"renewables increase oil dependency" now that is an argument I haven't seen before.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#193

Post by OKRainbowKid »

AlexandrB wrote: post #89
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets repeated again and again, but wouldn't the money required to build/maintain nuclear plants be much better invested in building out renewables and battery storage? They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Meanwhile power from nuclear plants are very expensive, comparatively. So why should we invest in nuclear energy? I have the impression a lot of the debate about nuclea…

> They already produce power much cheaper, and cost efficiency keeps increasing. Yet France, which invested heavily in nuclear[1], has energy prices that are 40% lower than Germany's[2]. Something isn't adding up about the repeated claims that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. [1] https://montel.energy/resources/blog/two-different-energy-sy... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

German energy prices aren't driven by renewables.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#194

Post by nozzlegear »

BurningFrog wrote: post #163
adrianN wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we stopped emissions today, Earth will keep warming up for a couple of decades. We’re not at equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 levels.

One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphe…

> 2. Spray the stratosphere with SO₂. This reflects some some sunlight and cools the planet. It sounds scary, but is actually safe: [...]

The Pina2bo strategy!

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57094295-termination-sho...

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#195

Post by padjo »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #66

People are truly having a climate change discussion fatigue. They hear all the time from politicians, celebrities, influencers, etc. that they should stop eating meat, should not drive non-electric vehicles, should not use AC, reduce consumption, and all other bullshit while the people preaching those have started wars that emit billions of tons of carbon, travel on their private planes to climate change summits, tak…

This post would make sense if we didn't live a world where the head of the most powerful country in the world says climate change is a scam.

Also, plenty of middle class, comfortable off people refuse to change their comparatively luxurious, king like lives even a little bit unless there is financial upside to them.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#196

Post by BurningFrog »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #180
BurningFrog wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphe…

Stratospheric aerosol injection hasn't been tested at any kind of scale, so we do not know whether it would be harmful (e.g. acid rain) or not. It would also be very expensive, so it's not really a practical solution at the moment. It may pan out, but stating "actually safe" is not yet known.

The Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991 actually did inject huge amounts of SO₂ to the stratosphere, and it disappeared over the next few years.

While it remained, northern hemisphere temperatures lowered by ~0.5°C.

USGS report: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/

Since the stratosphere is far above the rain cycle, it's very hard to imagine a mechanism whereby this could produce acid rain, and even if it did, acid rain is a much smaller problem than global warming.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#197

Post by toasty228 »

palata wrote: post #67
toasty228 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? Far right, far left, far center, it's all the same: money, power, money, power, stay in the EU, free market, money, power.

People could vote for candidates who care. They just don't.

Nobody cares enough, they all like the status quo, unless you want to vote for insane royalists &co

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#198

Post by ZeroGravitas »

csto12 wrote: post #8
toasty228 wrote: post #2

As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now, this is the new normal, and it'll only get worse

> “the people in charge” The everyday person votes for those in charge, and the everyday person couldn’t care less.

Everyday people are generally more pro-renewables and climate action. The politicians can be targeted with bribes by anyone affected by the transition.

A classic collective action problem as described by Mancur Olson.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#199

Post by beej71 »

spwa4 wrote: post #142
trescenzi wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental reason that climate change is an issue is because it happens over timescales which the ecosystem and human society struggle to keep up. No one reasonable believes we can cool from where we're headed, minus some extreme technical approaches, slowing it down is the goal. You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the fu…

> You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal. You know, that's yet another major problem. You're wrong. If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the plane…

> If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years)

If we stopped CO2 emissions today and, like you said, warming would continue unabated for decades, why would the meltwater situation change in 2 years?

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#200

Post by tremon »

einszwei wrote: post #174
jamesdwilson wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it primarily arson? == Europe is currently facing a dual crisis of arson-driven wildfires and coordinated sabotage operations. In the summer of 2026, extreme heatwaves have exacerbated wildfire seasons in France, Spain, and Italy, where authorities have linked many blazes to deliberate human ignition. French Interior Minister Sébastien Lecornu reported 162 arrests for suspected arson since early July, noting th…

All human-caused fires aren't arson, most of these are usually negligence (source: worked in operations at fire service). Not discounting the risk of arson but I find it is used a lot to distract from conditions making the forests a tinder box.

A comment from an earlier thread alleged that Spanish policy says that forests that are destroyed due to fire don't have to be rebuilt, the land can be re-purposed. That's what's driving the arson in Spain.

I have no way to evaluate the veracity of this site, but https://inspain.news/spains-wildfire-tragedy-now-has-a-human... says:

> In some cases, arson is linked to economic gain: land clearance, insurance fraud, or disputes over grazing rights. Others are sparked by resentment towards environmental restrictions.

Post reply on HN