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

Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#111

Post by throwaway100773 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #47
throwaway100773 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would need utility scale storage to flatten the load curve. The peaks and super peaks are not going away until there is a viable storage mechanism with enough capacity. We are talking significant changes in demand between even the early afternoon and the super peak in almost all load areas (pjm California ercot). The other alternative is a massive buildout or behind the meter solar which theoretically could solve…

What the above poster is suggesting is adjusting demand dynamically based on price. That requires consumers to throttle their own usage (probably using automated systems that know the real-time price of electricity). You can run the dishwasher or charge your car or cool your home when electricity is cheap.

I’m not sure there is enough play in demand elasticity to affect significant change relative to the amount of load difference you see. Furthermore the peaks are highly weather sensitive. Would love to be proven wrong though.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#112

Post by willis936 »

beerandt wrote: post #110
willis936 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A carbon tax is not paying someone to not do something. It is charging someone for the actual cost of their actions. It is pure utilitarianism.

I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.

I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#113

Post by beerandt »

willis936 wrote: post #112
beerandt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail. If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.

I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?

I'm speaking as a matter of strategy. A carbon tax might work, and be seen as a victory, tactically, but will be the wrong move, strategically.

It prevents addition of co2, but does not subtract. Focus on encouraging and incentives for subtraction, not preventing addition. If you want people to get on board. (I get that reducing emissions means less to sequester. That's thinking short term, and beyond minor cutbacks, a political loser. A successful solution won't require that to be effective.)

I'm saying anything punitive and negatively coercive is the wrong approach. It might technically work, but won't ever be successful politically. Unless we go full authoritarian regime. As soon as a large enough portion of the population is hit with having to change lifestyle, it's done for. Focus on solutions that don't require that.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#114

Post by tzs »

apatters wrote: post #101
tzs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The largest share of global carbon is emitted by countries like India and China India emits about 7% of global emissions. The United States emits about 16% [1]. Per capita India emits about 1/9th what the US does. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...

Thanks for the catch, off the top of my head I remembered that India was #3 but didn't realize how far below the US they were. I still think the basic thesis I am driving at holds, instead of cleaning up their act 20 years ago, multinational corporations shipped all of these polluting jobs to nations where it was OK to pollute, acting as a sort of escape valve which allowed them to continue belching carbon into the a…

> US and EU industry are among the cleanest in the world and asking the working class in these places to make more sacrifices is a slap in the face which has been going on for years

US is 16.1 metric tons per capita in 2018. The only countries or territories higher than the US are Kazakhstan (16.8), Australia (16.8), Luxembourg (16.9), Oman (17.6), Saudi Arabia (18.6), Estonia (18.6), Gibraltar (21.8), Bahrain (21.8), United Arab Emirates (22.4), Kuwait (23.9), Trinidad and Tobago (26.2), New Caledonia (26.2), Qatar (38.2), Curaçao (52.1), and Palau (58.0).

The EU average is 8.6. China is 8.0. India is 1.9.

I don't see how the US qualifies as among the cleanest.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#115

Post by apatters »

tzs wrote: post #114
apatters wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the catch, off the top of my head I remembered that India was #3 but didn't realize how far below the US they were. I still think the basic thesis I am driving at holds, instead of cleaning up their act 20 years ago, multinational corporations shipped all of these polluting jobs to nations where it was OK to pollute, acting as a sort of escape valve which allowed them to continue belching carbon into the a…

> US and EU industry are among the cleanest in the world and asking the working class in these places to make more sacrifices is a slap in the face which has been going on for years US is 16.1 metric tons per capita in 2018. The only countries or territories higher than the US are Kazakhstan (16.8), Australia (16.8), Luxembourg (16.9), Oman (17.6), Saudi Arabia (18.6), Estonia (18.6), Gibraltar (21.8), Bahrain (21.8)…

Emissions per capita is not a good metric. It favors states which have millions of people who are living in poverty and who thus by definition have low consumption, which translates to low emissions. The downside of course is that these people are starving.

If you imported 200 million people into the US in poverty conditions and did nothing to improve their situation, then all of a sudden US per capita emissions would look great too.

In the worst case scenario if you attach policy to this metric you might see states gaming it by deciding to make sure their poor people stay that way (probably already on the minds of policy makers in some authoritarian states).

Admittedly I don't have numbers handy, but I think it would be better to look at emissions generated per dollar of economic output, particularly in industries that generate the most emissions. Then you can start inferring judgements about whether it's better for humanity to open a new factory in China or in the USA, and those two states have to compete on cleanliness if they want to grow their economic output. I bet this sort of measurement would paint the US in a much more favorable light than per capita (and the EU even better). If adding the next $100B to the world economy in the US or EU is cleaner than adding it in China, why shouldn't we push for that?

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#116

Post by efnx »

jeffdavis wrote: post #96
simonsarris wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very worried about brain development and health. I suspect they are making a big mistake, but its especially so for children. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2018.1... > The present paper argues that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics ignores or gives short shrift to direct and indirect evidence that vegetarianism may be associated with serious risks for brain and body development in…

Thank you for your concern and helpful research. I am concerned as well. As a teen, she has her own mind and determination so my opinion only goes so far. But the links might be helpful.

There’s the big China study you can use as a starting point. If you want a catchy movie check out game changers, it’s flashy but deals specifically with athletes.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#117

Post by efnx »

simonsarris wrote: post #95
jeffdavis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My daughter is vegan and sometimes I worry about her diet. A diet is what you do eat, how much, when, etc.; but being vegan only tells you what you don't eat. Surprisingly little about vegan promotional stuff gives practical advice. It's mostly talking about how wasteful meat is and how foolish meat-eaters are. Where is practical material about daily eating habits? Like, what should an athletic teenager eat, how much…

I'd be very worried about brain development and health. I suspect they are making a big mistake, but its especially so for children. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2018.1... > The present paper argues that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics ignores or gives short shrift to direct and indirect evidence that vegetarianism may be associated with serious risks for brain and body development in…

B12 deficiency happens even when you eat meat. Humans used to get B12 from bacteria in the dirt that accompanied much of the food we ate. Eating meat these days doesn’t give you enough B12 and has to be supplemented.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#118

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #111
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the above poster is suggesting is adjusting demand dynamically based on price. That requires consumers to throttle their own usage (probably using automated systems that know the real-time price of electricity). You can run the dishwasher or charge your car or cool your home when electricity is cheap.

I’m not sure there is enough play in demand elasticity to affect significant change relative to the amount of load difference you see. Furthermore the peaks are highly weather sensitive. Would love to be proven wrong though.

There's not much play in demand at the moment, but there could be if more systems were aware of the price of electricity. A/C can be turned off, cars can stop charging, dishes can wait, etc.

Variation in renewable energy generation can be reduced by averaging over larger geographic areas. Wind speeds and cloud cover vary much more on local scales than on continent-wide scales.

A combination of demand adjustment and linking of power generation over large geographic areas can reduce the need for energy storage.

Post reply on HN