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

Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 271 posts

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#131

Post by EdwardCoffin »

lettergram wrote: post #53
collyw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that climate activists never seem to push for nuclear, the most obvious solution.

It’s the tell. Lots of reports pointing out Russia funds environmental groups. China does the same - but more openly - advertising cheap solar and wind (neither function as well as nuclear). https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-invest...

That article is an opinion piece written by a resident of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a far right think tank with ties to the Koch Brothers.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#132

Post by londons_explore »

thelastgallon wrote: post #118
pstrateman wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be generating 120% but what happens if everybody installs? Do you have storage installed to smooth out the dead hours? Unfortunately the answer is that you need days of storage for solar and wind to be anywhere near 100% of the energy mix. The cost of that is astronomical.

A comment like this comes up in every discussion of renewables and needs to die. We don't need separate stationery storage, enormous storage capacity will be free as car batteries. EVs will have 17 times the battery capacity of stationary storage systems by 2030 [1]. By the time we completely transition to EVs, it will be 100s of times of storage. All this storage capacity is available at zero cost, people buy cars a…

Power prices have been going negative and spiking up 100x in the UK for a decade or more.

Yet the vast majority of EV's don't have the ability to discharge into the grid to earn money... Most can't even charge when power is negatively priced unless you pay for a third party charger and service.

Basically, Car owners, charger owners, Utility companies, and EV manufacturers would all like to earn the money by charging/discharging your EV at times to earn the most money. But all of those people don't want someone else being able to take that sweet sweet revenue. So they put roadblocks in the way.

EV's usually have the capability to charge into the grid, but firmware that won't allow it.

Chargers (AC and DC) won't allow power to flow back into the grid, and will disconnect any car who tries.

Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance.

And users want to do this, but have three parties who've assembled roadblocks in the way. And there is no indication of that impasse ending anytime soon.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#133

Post by kmeisthax »

brettermeier wrote: post #64
collyw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that climate activists never seem to push for nuclear, the most obvious solution.

Why is it obvious to pollute the earth with ultra-deadly waste for the next couple million years?

You mean like all the radioactive coal smog?

No, seriously, coal burning released more radiation into the environment than actual nuclear waste. Long-term storage is a problem but it's still a better problem to have to solve than fossil fuel pollution.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#134

Post by radicalbyte »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #98
pixl97 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the new question then becomes, can we make enough solar panels for everyone without destroying the Earth?

A more pertinent question is possibly can we make enough storage to smooth the supply sufficiently to allow adoption of solar as the principal electricity supply technology. Seems like we're going to need to become more diurnal and more seasonal in our approach to industry? Make hay while the sun shines, as the idiom says.

We're getting to the point where wind > hydrogen > combustion will be cheap enough to cover that kind of swing. We're going to be connecting electric systems over a huge landmass which will resolve much of the non-seasonal swings.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#135

Post by pharmakom »

thelastgallon wrote: post #118
pstrateman wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be generating 120% but what happens if everybody installs? Do you have storage installed to smooth out the dead hours? Unfortunately the answer is that you need days of storage for solar and wind to be anywhere near 100% of the energy mix. The cost of that is astronomical.

A comment like this comes up in every discussion of renewables and needs to die. We don't need separate stationery storage, enormous storage capacity will be free as car batteries. EVs will have 17 times the battery capacity of stationary storage systems by 2030 [1]. By the time we completely transition to EVs, it will be 100s of times of storage. All this storage capacity is available at zero cost, people buy cars a…

Hooking up the car to the roof solar is still very expensive. It needs to be done for every house. What if the car is at work and someone needs the battery power at home?

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#136

Post by bryanlarsen »

Comevius wrote: post #127
bryanlarsen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in high school, the standard weeknight entertainment was driving up and down main street in vehicles that got about 8 mpg. Today, standard weeknight entertainment for high school boys is multi-player video games. Yes, multi-player video games are still slightly carbon positive. But they're about a million times better than driving up and down main street. That's massive progress. Next, what's the environme…

On the contrary, consumption and energy use went up, not to mention waste. That video game needs 600-700 watts per client and most of it is created very inefficiently, using fossil fuels. People still drive up and down too, and there are more people. > the economy of 2200 The planet will be barely habitable, if at all.

Sorry I exaggerated. Video games are only 1000x better than driving an 80s car, not a millions.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#137

Post by geysersam »

pixl97 wrote: post #80
radicalbyte wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was skeptical until I saw how good my sun panels work. We only have installed about 50% of capacity and they generate enough to cover 120% of our annual electric usage. Everything here is electric except the heating and I work from home all day (with an energy-drinking PC set-up). I live in The Netherlands - the same panels will generate about 2x as much energy a year if they were in Spain or North Africa. I wouldn…

I think the new question then becomes, can we make enough solar panels for everyone without destroying the Earth?

We have to. The alternative is destroying the earth even more.

And overall, the lifetime environmental impact of solar panels is much lower than producing the same energy using fossile fuels.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#138

Post by bryanlarsen »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #125
bryanlarsen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to produce revenue, it just has to aid in the production of GDP. I don't pay for Linux, but it is a key part of the GDP I am responsible for. And while Linux is maintained, the vast bulk of the value it provides is quite old and almost unchanged.

But the Linux we use today isn't 20 year old software. Sure, the foundation is over 30 year old, but most of the Linux code we use today is relatively fresh and is constantly being improved and updated. Again, I bring the ship of Theseus argument. I doubt my Android phone has too many lines of code written by Linus on it. Not many places are running software that saw no more active development for over 20 years. Even…

bitrot is real.

Is it comparable to actual food rot or the one way transformation of fossil fuels into energy?

No.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#139

Post by tsimionescu »

eloff wrote: post #100
pixl97 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the new question then becomes, can we make enough solar panels for everyone without destroying the Earth?

Yes. Quite easily, the materials are common. They require energy to process and ship, but that does not have to come from fossil fuels. I'm confident we'll get there. There will be lots of mitigating the damage from climate change, because that train wreck is still in motion. But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century.

> But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century.

Unfortunately unless we completely decarbonize by the middle of the century, we'll reach catastrophic levels of global warming (>3 degrees warming, likely leading to the polar ice caps melting and significant ocean level rises, especially at the equator).

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#140

Post by yesco »

Comevius wrote: post #127
bryanlarsen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in high school, the standard weeknight entertainment was driving up and down main street in vehicles that got about 8 mpg. Today, standard weeknight entertainment for high school boys is multi-player video games. Yes, multi-player video games are still slightly carbon positive. But they're about a million times better than driving up and down main street. That's massive progress. Next, what's the environme…

On the contrary, consumption and energy use went up, not to mention waste. That video game needs 600-700 watts per client and most of it is created very inefficiently, using fossil fuels. People still drive up and down too, and there are more people. > the economy of 2200 The planet will be barely habitable, if at all.

Minor correction but consumer game consoles tend to cap out at 220 watts, and even for PCs 600-700 watts is on the higher end.
Post reply on HN