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

Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#111

Post by simianwords »

foota wrote: post #109
simianwords wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the real difference? Don’t offsets also do the same thing? If I emit 5g of CO2 but purchase similar in offsets - the offsets have to achieve a reduction of 5g unless something like a scam is going on.

Some of these offsets are of dubious quality. E.g., I think some of these offsets are from _not_ doing something that you might have otherwise done, but maybe you wouldn't have done that thing regardless.

Interesting. Maybe the offset should be the expected value of co2 that would not be emitted after accounting for probability. It doesn’t seem like a scam fundamentally.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#112

Post by jeffbee »

nathan_compton wrote: post #110
jeffbee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, uniquely among all other industries? You don't think the petrochemical industry, for example, needs to pay for its larger externalities?

I think pretty much all industries could be paying more taxes.

Big same, friend. But the kinds of people who think taxing externalities of AI would be a big victory are going to be extremely mad about $8/gal motor fuels.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#113

Post by glenstein »

dwedge wrote: post #87
downrightmike wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just pave the mojave with solar panels. Nearly no one lives there and no one wants to live there and it is dead center to western states. If China can pave mountains, a little desert with caliche should be easy

Paving deserts with black heat absorbers that are only 10-20% efficient in converting that energy to electricity could well end up affecting climate more than burning coal would

1% from a Dyson Sphere would be a better energy return than 100% efficiency from any conventional energy sorce. Similarly, 20% from solar is competitive with 60% from nuclear, 50% from coal, and is easily better than 100% from my neighbor Dan riding a bicycle powered electricity generator.

You can't cite efficiency percentages in a vacuum to imply they are a better or worse than alternatives, because those aren't percentages of the same kinds of things, and they don't tell you about the economics, production in absolute terms or EROEI.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#115

Post by duskwuff »

ajross wrote: post #59
mullingitover wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument for tariffs on China's panels is that they're dumping. However, really the answer to dumping is to exploit the dumper viciously, buy as much below market rate product of theirs as you can while they bleed money (especially a capital good like solar panels). The US could be driving down the cost of energy nationwide with the dumped power generation equipment. Lower cost energy could then be turbocharging…

This is absolutely true. The strategic goal of "dumping" is to drive competitors (the example here being the US solar panel industry) out of a market, with the implied goal of raising prices at the end of the process. But it almost never works that way in practice. Pretty much by definition, products that can be dumped are ones that can be manufactured with easily scaled production equipment at low margin and high vo…

> The strategic goal of "dumping" is to drive competitors (the example here being the US solar panel industry) out of a market

Which makes very little sense, because the US solar panel industry is practically nonexistent. There are some companies that do last-stage assembly of solar panels in the US - probably to meet "made in USA" requirements - but the solar cells themselves are almost all made overseas.

In short, there's nothing there for China to dump on - the US is not a competitive threat to China in this sector. All indications are that Chinese solar panels are cheap because they're being manufactured in immense volumes to help meet China's own energy demands. The international sales are a bonus, not the primary goal.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#117

Post by ncruces »

munk-a wrote: post #43
watwut wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, that was googles choice. And They made the search worst was consciously as a business strategy, because worst search meant more queries. And they forced ai on top of search because they wanted to.

They're a dinosaur and have forgotten how to innovate and provide new value. This is what complacency and shifting your business to focus on regulatory capture ultimately leads to.

Are their competitors more energy efficient somehow?

This is a thread about them not being able to meet carbon neutrality commitments because of AI, which they feel they need to because competitors are eating their lunch.

Are the competitors not eating their lunch? Are they doing so because they're more green? Otherwise what are they expected to do? Not compete? “Innovate” themselves out of not needing energy consuming AI?

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#118

Post by goku12 »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #71
nathan_compton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could "remind them" by passing laws that made them pay for externalities.

Who passes those laws? The politicians bought and paid for by the same companies?

That's the failure of the people. Those politicians are supposed to represent their constituents - not their highest bidder. Democracy is not a system where people choose a politician and hand them the power and authority over themselves for the next half a decade. Instead, people have to constantly and consistently boss them and hold them accountable. This is the duty of every citizen towards a democratic constitution, without which the latter is not even viable.

I know what response to expect for the above. It will be contemptuously dismissed with the remark that it's just a fantasy. But I hope you're seeing the congress people running out of town halls via the backdoors in disgrace after their constituents heckled them and challenged their demagoguery. Sadly, it's a tad bit late. This should have been the response to much less provocation. Still, many of those politicians are now afraid to blindly endorse the ideas of their overlords. This concept isn't new either. This was widely experimented with during the French revolution. They had provisions to recall and replace the reps in such instances. What people need are political education and a strong allegiance to the constitution.

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#119

Post by jampa »

simianwords wrote: post #104
notatoad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carbon-free energy on every grid where they operate also sounds like a significantly more ambitious goal than net-zero across the company, because it means actual reduction in emissions, rather than relying on offsets. if it's a serious committment to being carbon-free, i think this sounds like a positive change. if it's a moonshot that they have no real intention of actually meeting, then it's a lot less impressive.…

What’s the real difference? Don’t offsets also do the same thing? If I emit 5g of CO2 but purchase similar in offsets - the offsets have to achieve a reduction of 5g unless something like a scam is going on.

"Carbon offsetting is like saying to your husband or spouse: ‘I’m going to cheat, but I’ll buy you a diamond ring.’"

Sometimes, the carbon offsets are from projects that would be built anyway, and there is a lot of sketchiness all around.

It might be better than nothing or it might empower companies to pollute more and then say, "Look, we are offsetting all this!"

Re: Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

#120

Post by derefr »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #83
downrightmike wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just pave the mojave with solar panels. Nearly no one lives there and no one wants to live there and it is dead center to western states. If China can pave mountains, a little desert with caliche should be easy

As a rule, if you're tempted to begin any sentence with "they should just..." -- don't. Electrical signal attenuation increases with the square of the distance, so you'll lose ~95% of the power to heat loss in the wires if you try to power Seattle from solar in Nevada -- not very eco-friendly, you'd agree? Also the extreme heat destroys solar panels. Also, dust. Also the permitting of stuff across state lines is so t…

I'll ignore your other points, because sibling comments are addressing them better. So here's something more unique:

> Also the permitting of stuff across state lines is so time-consuming it's effectively illegal.

This is true in general, but in this specific case, there are a lot of obvious ways to get around the problem, because Nevada is a moth-eaten shirt of federal land reservations — Nevada-the-political-entity only owns/regulates ~15% of the land of Nevada-the-geographic-territory.

With the current state of the US federal government, lobbying to privately use one of those federal reservations would be a walk in the park; and once you're going "California -> federal land" instead of "Calfornia -> Nevada", regulation gets a lot simpler.

Fun fact: there's a National Forest in Nye County (bordering California) that runs right up to the edge of the DoE-reserved area where they did the nuke tests. The feds are fine with running HVDC lines through National Forests (they're not Parks, after all), and "repurposing nuked ground for solar" is actually an easy-to-sell narrative at all levels. You could build solar there and backhaul it to California without ever touching land regulated by Nevada-the-political-entity.

Post reply on HN