Europe's fires are just the start • Hacker News Board

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#331

Post by mayama » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #215

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…

> The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale [...] The unsolved problem is extracting You answered it yourself: it's not possible to get rid of the excess CO2. Think about conservation of energy: we extracted energy by burning stuff and producing CO2. We cannot revert that with less energy than we extracted from doing it in the first place. > It sounds scary, but is actually safe Famous last word…

> You answered it yourself: it's not possible to get rid of the excess CO2. Think about conservation of energy: we extracted energy by burning stuff and producing CO2.

You can use pyrolysis to reduce usage of energy. Instead of building ethanol using corn etc, some fast growing crop can be converted to biochar using pyrolysis. And stored indefinitely underground or somewhere. Of course this isn't profitable and probably will run in to climate activists roadblocks.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#332

Post by mayama » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 3:45 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #75

world2vec wrote: post #40

"Being better at fighting fires, though, is not enough." Yeah, it's nowhere near enough. We need to seriously revamp how we manage forests. They must be regularly cleaned, huge fire breaks between fenced areas and roads must be created and maintained. Prescribed burns on a regular schedule. Houses cannot be too close to the trees, no matter how pretty it looks. A huge clean radius must be maintained between houses an…

>They must be regularly cleaned People keep reiterating this probably because Trump keeps reiterating but it just sounds ridiculous. How do you clean forests? The debris is part of the forest, not all areas of a forest are easily accessible or feasible to transport debis out of there. A dead tree is actually an ecosystem of fungi and insects. Cleaning it may make it more fire prone as broken sticks and leaves shield…

> How do you clean forests? The debris is part of the forest, not all areas of a forest are easily accessible or feasible to transport debis out of there.

Cleaning is huge financial burden and has questionable outcome. Only extreme solution I can think of is fireblocks if situation gets worse which could worsen climate change by clearing trees. Divide forest in to grids, building roads wide enough to fire from spreading. Fill roads up with gravel or concrete to stop fires from spreading. Climate activists would never allow such plan to be implemented.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#333

Post by bluefirebrand » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:12 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #173

bluefirebrand wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables and batteries are great for peaks though. And not very good for base load Nuclear is great for base load, not great for peaks Our current situation is we are building tons of renewables and storage but still burning tons of fossil fuels because they cannot replace the base load very effectively. Nuclear replaces the carbon part of the equation

"Base load" is not an actual demand that needs to be satisfied. Providing base load is a privilege you get to enjoy if your marginal cost is lower than anyone elses (and you want/can keep running basically all of the time). Renewables ruin former baseload providers (like nuclear plants) because those plants are basically no longer making money whenever the sun shines (so the economics for nuclear plants got much wors…

> Providing base load is a privilege you get to enjoy if your marginal cost is lower than anyone elses (and you want/can keep running basically all of the time)

The "if you can keep running all of the time" is actually the more important factor of base load than just price.

I guess if you want to look at it through purely a price point thing, does the solar price effectively go to infinity when there are clouds out or it's night time?

Maybe base load is the wrong term for it, I don't know. All I'm saying is that solar and wind aren't generating all of the time, and building out the storage capacity to completely cover our existing needs seems kind of unfathomable.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#334

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:06 PM UTC

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #256

palata wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory is that it can reach a point where it won't be able to survive, and therefore it will die. We are around that limit. It may well be that it has already passed it and therefore it will die. I didn't mean "it is not there anymore", I meant "we won't be able to preserve it, it may already be too late for that".

How is the Amazon going to die? Don't plants kinda like co2? Do you think it'll just become a desert somehow or something?

Plants need a lot of things, not just CO2; what they are limited by varies from case to case, and conversion to farmland can cause permanent damage which may indeed turn it into a desert.

Fortunately, careful manipulation can reverse desertification.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#335

Post by adrianN » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #329

adrianN wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fossil fuels can be replaced for every use case by electricity from carbon-free sources and some chemistry. The price point for replacement of course varies by application. There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels. Some things will naturally become more expensive, but other things might also became cheaper.

> There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy Has there been, in history, the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels? No. That's a first reason. Are there practical replacements for every use case of fossil fuels? Most definitely not! I don't know where you get that. For those replacements we know, it has never been done at scale , so we don't know if it's possible or not…

You seem to believe that proof of feasibility is impossible before actually finishing the task. I disagree. And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Much older than any large scale use of fossil fuels.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#336

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:01 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #319

Maxatar wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an absurd statement. Lets use bank accounts instead of CO2 to point out the absurdity. Imagine every year a company makes $730,000 in revenue but spends $730,000 on various expenses. Its bank balance doesnt change because the income and expenses cancel out. Now suppose the company starts receiving an additional $30,000 every year while its expenses stay the same. At the end of each year, its bank balance incr…

> The bank balance grows entirely because of the net imbalance Yes, this is my whole point. You wrote a long condescending comment accusing me of being a climate denier that fully agrees with me. My point is that the actual amount of atmospheric increase per year is less than the amount humans put into the atmosphere per year, so 1) obviously humans are responsible for CC, and 2) could stop it at any time by dropping…

[deleted]

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#337

Post by palata » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #335

palata wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy Has there been, in history, the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels? No. That's a first reason. Are there practical replacements for every use case of fossil fuels? Most definitely not! I don't know where you get that. For those replacements we know, it has never been done at scale , so we don't know if it's possible or not…

You seem to believe that proof of feasibility is impossible before actually finishing the task. I disagree. And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Much older than any large scale use of fossil fuels.

> And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old.

Of course it works if you take the part that is convenient to your argument. What about globalised economies?

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#338

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #328

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point This is sort of like saying the economy is air or the economy is sand. (What is closer to correct is the economy is, within approximation, energy.) > the truth is that it is slowing down because of fossil fuels American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita. Europe’s malaises are broader than this. >…

> American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita GDP is artificial. Did you ever check how they correct for inflation? GDP is worth nothing for science, it's just there for economists to do... whatever they do. > If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. I don't know how you read that from what I say. I say, "if we don…

> GDP is artificial

…all economic metrics are artificial. Society is artificial.

How are you defining an economy? Or is your original statement (“economy is fossil fuels”) just a tautology?

> don't know how you read that from what I say

There is no political system on the planet that can enact and survive economic collapse. If that’s what’s required, this is a fool’s errand.

Fortunately, again, you’re wrong. It’s not required, though I’m sure we’ll keep seeing governments who try the silly route replaced. The best we can do in the meantime is politically sideline folks who believe this stuff.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#339

Post by kleiba2 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 7:33 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #307

kleiba2 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the states, Germany is densely populated and does not have vast uninhabited areas. Where do you suggest should they store their nuclear waste? Germany has been looking for an appropriate place for the last 50(!) years and does not expect to come to a conclusion any time soon: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-scrap-deadline-... In the mean time, they're keeping they're using the sites of their forme…

Nuclear waste is a complete non-issue. The area you need to store it is tiny and you do not at all need vast uninhabited areas for it.

Right. That's why 50 years of searching has not been enough in Germany.

Re: Europe's fires are just the start

#340

Post by palata » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 8:07 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #338

palata wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita GDP is artificial. Did you ever check how they correct for inflation? GDP is worth nothing for science, it's just there for economists to do... whatever they do. > If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. I don't know how you read that from what I say. I say, "if we don…

> GDP is artificial …all economic metrics are artificial. Society is artificial. How are you defining an economy? Or is your original statement (“economy is fossil fuels”) just a tautology? > don't know how you read that from what I say There is no political system on the planet that can enact and survive economic collapse. If that’s what’s required, this is a fool’s errand. Fortunately, again, you’re wrong. It’s not…

> How are you defining an economy?

I said it above. The economy is what we produce and consume. Because the metrics economists use (like GDP) make no sense does not mean that the economy does not exist.

There are physical metrics to measure how the economy is doing (that I mentioned above). For instance, you can look at how many tons of stuff are being moved by trucks. If many trucks move a lot of stuff, then it means that stuff is being produced and consumed.

Another one you can measure is the surface that is being constructed. When humans in a country build houses and buildings, it is a sign that "the economy" is growing.

And it is difficult to cheat with those "physical" metrics. Whereas cheating GDP is absolutely trivial. Do you know how they correct for inflation? There is no way to "measure" inflation, it's a guesstimate. But depending on how you guesstimate it, you increase or decrease the GDP.

What we see in Europe since 2007 (the peak of fossil fuels for Europe) is that trucks are moving less and less stuff, and the surface built by humans in Europe is slowing down. Those physical estimators show that Europe is slowing down, completely correlated to fossil fuels. GDP is growing, sure... but again GDP is "manipulated" (consciously or not, that's not the point) by the numbers we put in the "inflation" box.