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

Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

apps.seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#21

Post by moocowduckquack »

jallmann wrote: post #10
moocowduckquack wrote: post #8

So, how do we build solar faster? The energy is there, there is ~89 petawatts of incoming solar hitting the ground and we apparently use ~18 terawatts and it looks technically achievable using current technology, so the main restriction would seem to be production capacity and capital costs.

We'd have to cover too much land with solar panels. What we need are more nuclear power plants, but no one will build them anymore.

We'd need less than the current roofspace. Compared to existing enterprises like agriculture, the land use is pretty small. Is still huge, of course, like the same size as Spain, or just over half of Texas, but spread out globally that is technically reasonable to achieve.

edit - The problem with most nuclear technology, is that if you are looking for a solution to global energy, it has to be something that you are not going to be scared of your enemy possessing. Nuclear might be cheaper to implement in some scenarios, but it is geopolitically screwed as a ubiquitous energy source.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#22

Post by YZF »

revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

Anyone else here doing Coursera's A Brief History of Humankind course?

Sadly human history is that of destroying and changing the environment, unintended consequences, and constant failure to improve the human condition. I'm not sure removing the power structure will fix this, what is going to happen when those are removed? At least in some places in the world the power structures are all that stand between individuals and more destruction of the planet.

A lot of us often criticise processes that occur in small companies with very smart individuals. How do we have hope for better processes in a world with billions of people if we can't even get 200 people to work?

I think the core issue, as Dr. Harari put it, is that we have catapulted by an evolutionary accident to the top of the food chain but we have not had time to respond to that change. Therefore we have become the most destructive force in the history of this planet. We are an animal with better cognitive abilities. Let's hope that we can progress beyond this stage fast enough...

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#23

Post by pchristensen »

jallmann wrote: post #10
moocowduckquack wrote: post #8

So, how do we build solar faster? The energy is there, there is ~89 petawatts of incoming solar hitting the ground and we apparently use ~18 terawatts and it looks technically achievable using current technology, so the main restriction would seem to be production capacity and capital costs.

We'd have to cover too much land with solar panels. What we need are more nuclear power plants, but no one will build them anymore.

Turns out it's not that much[1]. Roughly covering Japan or Germany (not an Axis thing, they're just the right size [2]) would provide enough solar power for the world.

[1] http://gizmodo.com/5350191/how-many-solar-panels-would-it-ta...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#24

Post by JonFish85 »

revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

> I don't think humanity will survive into the 22nd century

Well that's a dumb thing to say. Have you been going to barbecues with Harold Camping?

It'll be a different place in 87 years, sure. But humanity will be doing just fine, unless some whackjob launches off some nuclear weapons.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#25

Post by mayanksinghal »

DanBC wrote: post #16

What can I, as an individual with no money nor power, do to help stop this? I can reduce my energy use as far as possible. Apart from the online stuff I'm pretty low CO2. I can reduce, reuse, and recycle. (I need to get better at that.) But what else can I do?

I guess we can pick the alternative energy source of our liking and evangelize for it. We can also technologically, monetarily, electorally and emotionally support the people who are looking for and deploying these alternatives. At least temporarily switch to ecologically cheaper foods, so that species who are facing problems get a few decades of rest, and recommend your preference to others who might enjoy the change as well.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#26

Post by [deleted] »

JonFish85 wrote: post #24
revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

> I don't think humanity will survive into the 22nd century Well that's a dumb thing to say. Have you been going to barbecues with Harold Camping? It'll be a different place in 87 years, sure. But humanity will be doing just fine, unless some whackjob launches off some nuclear weapons.

[deleted]

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#27

Post by craigyk »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #19
revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten, is not as bad as a little more CO2? By the way, not 1 word in the article, filled with all sorts of scary quotes, about diatoms and their role in CO2 sequestration.

Fukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#28

Post by indefatigable »

Since regulating CO2 is such a useful political tool, it's not surprising that a new hypothesis justifying regulation has been making its way into the mainstream as the global warming movement collapses.

I doubt that the researchers involved are interested as much in the politics, but it's fair to say that they wouldn't be getting a fancy new media campaign if their results didn't support the movement. Remember Marcott et al?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#29

Post by comicjk »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #19
revscat wrote: post #7

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten, is not as bad as a little more CO2? By the way, not 1 word in the article, filled with all sorts of scary quotes, about diatoms and their role in CO2 sequestration.

> possibly

Except that's not possible, even for a Chernobyl-level release of radioactive material. You might as well suggest that Chernobyl made all food from Britain to Afghanistan inedible. We can detect material from Fukushima in the Pacific, but only because we have the technology to detect radiation in infinitesimal amounts.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#30

Post by dragonwriter »

w0rd-driven wrote: post #12

Is the problem that we're simply creating more CO2 than can be manufactured back into O2 by plants? Would the practicality of a "CO2 vent to space" work? We vent the excess but obviously not everything considering we wouldn't want to destroy all plant life on earth (and subsequently our own in the process). The one major downside is if this wasn't tightly controlled and a "leak" happened we could foster the end of li…

> Would the practicality of a "CO2 vent to space" work?

No. The atmosphere is not isolated from space in way that could be addressed by venting (selective or not).

You could in principal isolate CO2 and launch it into space (long-term, that's an oxygen-depletion strategy, but, ignoring the resource requirements, it might be better than building it up in the atmosphere on some time scales), but when you consider the resource (including energy) costs of launching material into space, that's a pretty bad idea, especially given that if you can isolate it, you can sequester it on earth with the same atmospheric effect without launching it into space.

Post reply on HN