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

Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 205 posts

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#171

Post by hackeraccount »

ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

How cheap can it be made locally? When you consider that try and take in mind comparative advantage.

I understand that price doesn't take externalities into effect. That said price is the best way we have to allocate resources - it conveys that information better then any other tool we have. If price indicates to people that toothbrushes should be made in China and shipped to the U.S. then I tend to think that's probably the most efficient way to do it.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#172

Post by hackeraccount »

axaxs wrote: post #68
ng12 wrote: post #53

I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for c…

To be completely fair, it's not like they ran a ship from China just to bring your toothbrush. It's of course with thousands of other items, lowering the total cost per item for shipping. And these costs are still cheaper than making it locally, someone deemed. Though you do bring up the real overall solution, making gas/fossil fuels much much more expensive. Not as a trade measure, though that may be a side effect,…

I think I read somewhere that with containerization the easiest assumption is that shipping is a zero cost activity.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#173

Post by hackeraccount »

ng12 wrote: post #81
irrational wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could it be made locally for cheap? Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks (not to mention all the other local stores)? Who is going to work in all of those factories for cheap? Wont all of those thousands of local toothbrush factories worldwide pollute even more than a single toothbrush factory worldwide?

There are plenty of American toothbrush manufacturers which already compete on price (I use Preserve, made from recycled material in America for $3). It's mostly the big guys (Colgate + OralB) who are trying to maximize profit by outsourcing to China. > Who is going to pay to build the local factories for everything your local drug store stocks The manufacturer is going to pay for it by selling their products to drug…

What's the margin on making toothbrushes? If you have a pile of money and you want the best return is it really going to be on a toothbrush factory in the U.S.? I have no idea what the answer to those questions are but it seems like "not much" and "something else."

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#174

Post by philipkglass »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
maxharris wrote: post #3

I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market. At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear…

At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US.

I think that you may have confused PV manufacturing capacity in the US with global PV manufacturing capacity.

The US generated 807 TWh from nuclear power in 2018 [1]. If solar farms achieve a good-but-realistic capacity factor of 25%, you need 368 gigawatts of modules [2] to produce 807 TWh per year. That's about 3 years' worth of global module production at 2019 production rates. US domestic module production is currently below 10 GW per year.

[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

[2] (807000 / (24*365)) / 0.25 = 368. Actually you need a bit more because most solar farms report capacity factor on an AC basis, and the inverter loading ratio is greater than 1.0. But close enough for a quick estimate.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#175

Post by Skunkleton »

cogman10 wrote: post #155
Skunkleton wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just look at cost/kwh. You have to look at the cost of meeting total instantaneous energy demands. Sure, solar and wind are cheaper in many places, but they all depend on a reliable fallback like natural gas. I really don't see how we can avoid fission power for the time being. Its the only current technology that is 100% compatible with our existing grid.

For now in the US, you can. We simply aren't at the point where there are enough renewables on the grid that adding more would ultimately cause more natural gas emissions. Until the renewable profile starts pushing into base load generation (particularly eating into green base loads like hydro and nuclear) then it is pretty much a pure win to add solar and wind. The natural gas peakers ultimately produce less CO2 wit…

We can’t afford to wait around, especially in the US. As it stands today, nuclear is part of the solution to climate change. The time to build new plants is now.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#176

Post by elihu »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature. I'd love it…

I think the awareness is there on the individual level in most countries; what's lacking is that the political process is broken in various way, so that the interests of wealthy people and shareholders overrule the will of the majority of people.

In the United States, for instance, a majority wants significant action to avert climate change. Some of the obstacles to this actually happening are the electoral college, the filibuster, gerrymandering, first-past-the-post elections, the Citizens United decision, regulatory capture, and so on. We don't need to fix all of those things in order to act decisively, but if we reformed at least some of them it would make progress much easier.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#177

Post by cogman10 »

Skunkleton wrote: post #175
cogman10 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now in the US, you can. We simply aren't at the point where there are enough renewables on the grid that adding more would ultimately cause more natural gas emissions. Until the renewable profile starts pushing into base load generation (particularly eating into green base loads like hydro and nuclear) then it is pretty much a pure win to add solar and wind. The natural gas peakers ultimately produce less CO2 wit…

We can’t afford to wait around, especially in the US. As it stands today, nuclear is part of the solution to climate change. The time to build new plants is now.

We can push out new solar and wind today, right now. The lead time for new renewables is months.

The lead time for new nuclear is 10->20 years. It is, frankly, too late for nuclear (at least without serious regulations overhaul). It might make sense to start building plants, but if we want to curb climate change then the only path is renewables.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#178

Post by nathanaldensr »

jesperlang wrote: post #122

Isn't this ultimately going to end up being a rationing issue? OK, rationing it's a forbidden word today but maybe we could have carbon credits divided by person and they are free to use them however they want. Even trade them to others. I know this is _super_ simplified but perhaps we need to start thinking in those terms sooner or later?

Who is "we?" Almost every human alive will not willingly accept a quality of life reduction on the scale most people here seem to assume can just... happen. The only way it happens is via brutal dictatorship.

Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

#179

Post by Skunkleton »

cogman10 wrote: post #177
Skunkleton wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t afford to wait around, especially in the US. As it stands today, nuclear is part of the solution to climate change. The time to build new plants is now.

We can push out new solar and wind today, right now. The lead time for new renewables is months. The lead time for new nuclear is 10->20 years. It is, frankly, too late for nuclear (at least without serious regulations overhaul). It might make sense to start building plants, but if we want to curb climate change then the only path is renewables.

My point isn’t that we shouldn’t deploy more solar/wind. Of course we should. We will need more nuclear power plants as well. The time for all of these is now. We can’t afford to wait until we hit the limit of what current renewables can provide before we build up our nuclear infrastructure.
Post reply on HN