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

Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 332 posts

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#171

Post by ameowba »

ajuc wrote: post #137
cure wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal…

>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too).

Do you have a source on this?

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#172

Post by ddxxdd »

bjourne wrote: post #156

I made some rough calculations yesterday and user strainer corrected me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19701879 It would seem that even with his corrections and this article's data capturing carbon isn't feasible. 1.2T trees increases earth's forestation by 40% but only nets us 10 years of emissions. It seems very inefficient in relation to trying to reduce emissions.

It seems to be more cost-effective than forcing everybody- including the poor- to buy brand new Teslas. Assuming that:

* It costs $0.50 per tree planted,

* trees absorb 1 ton of CO2 each,

* Teslas cost $15,000 more than regular cars

* Teslas emit 1 gallon of fuel less than regular cars per 25 miles (starting after 50,000 miles: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346...)

* 1 gallon of gas produces 20 lbs of CO2

* Cars will last 250,000 miles

Then we have Teslas saving us: ( (250,000-50,000) miles * 1 gallon per 25 miles * 20 lbs per gallon)/$15,000 = 10 pounds of CO2 saved per dollar spent on Teslas, compared to 4,000 pounds of CO2 saved per dollar spent on planting trees.

This is why I associate myself with climate skeptics despite their negative reputation. An economic analysis of climate change seems to suggest that the world will be worse off with climate change mitigation, as it's currently being practiced, than with climate change itself.

Edit: It's actually quite interesting to see that your username resembles the name of Bjorne Lomborg, a famous scientist who often makes arguments about the economics of climate change and comes to similar conclusions as I do.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#174

Post by nitrogen »

ameowba wrote: post #171
ajuc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal…

>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?

Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#176

Post by teawrecks »

ameowba wrote: post #171
ajuc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal…

>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?

Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#177

Post by iamphilrae »

ajuc wrote: post #137
cure wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal…

Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-...

And a quote:

“Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.”

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#178

Post by repiret »

jweir wrote: post #57

But, wait... some places are clearing forest for solar farms. Georgetown https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetow... Rhode Island https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190414/proposed-ri-... Prineville Oregon(I dont' know how many trees will be cleared for this, maybe it will be on existing farmland) https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2018/07/massive_so...

Most of the solar installations around Prineville are replacing sage scrub, not forest.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#179

Post by taf2 »

I hope this is the American version of a trillion and not the British.. googles how many billions are in a trillion and got back

“In the American system one billion is 1,000,000,000 and a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one thousand times one billion. In the British system one billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and one trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one million times one billion.”

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#180

Post by ajuc »

teawrecks wrote: post #176
ameowba wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?

Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.

Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people.

But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks.

> if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.

If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't.

How is that not important?

Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.

Post reply on HN