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

536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 365 posts

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#181

Post by nemo44x »

seph-reed wrote: post #158
aksss wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kidding me? We're all getting the coke. Just because you're not Scarface doesn't avoid the fact that all of us are awash in plastics, silicone, rare earth metals, concrete, steel, precious metals, alloys, goods from far flung lands, industrial agriculture and many assumptions about available services that rely on the same and ravenous upstream fossil fuel consumption. We (as human consumers) never had it so good,…

EDIT: This post is angry. I say my words more clearly below. > living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago > We (as human consumers) never had it so good You couldn't possibly understand how much better community and and a sense purpose is to the life we're living. The fact that we become more and more isolated, more and more lied to, more and more defeated and yet: you thin…

What if one believes life in general is more or less meaningless and that the “better” feeling you get from community is nothing more than various chemical releases that can be triggered just the same as consuming as many resources as I can while I’m here?

Why seek the good feelings by relying on a community that you have no control over than pick your favorite things to consume? Why have people that lived within the community model for thousands of years defected the first chance they could?

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#182

Post by indigo945 »

LukeEF wrote: post #166

I don't mean to be too precise, but the article is slightly undermined by the claim in the graphic that the 543 Justinian plague hurried the collapse of the eastern Roman Empire. The 'Eastern' Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the walls of Constantinople were breached by the Ottomans. Very difficult to claim that the Romans fell in the 6th Century. I mean nearly 500 years later Basil is rolling back into Syria on the ba…

The precise date of the fall of the Roman Empire -- and the point where it became Byzantium -- is a subject of debate. There is no unanimous agreement that referring to Constantinople as the Roman Empire is much more useful than, say, calling the Holy Roman Empire "Roman". Whatever your personal views may be on this matter, there indeed are some scholars that date the fall of the Roman Empire on the failure of Justinian's restauratio imperii, which coincided with the plague. [1]

[1]: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F33DA79F872937C22C8...

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#183

Post by pfdietz »

airstrike wrote: post #173
pfdietz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

Here's a summary of the video, posted as one of the top comments on YT: https://sundaynewsletter.com/february-video-summaries/vaclav...

Nowhere does he make the case that 100% renewables is impossible. It is, of course, a tall order, but maintaining and growing a global energy infrastructure OF ANY KIND is a tall order.

Smil has argued that energy transitions happen only slowly, but I think he's being misled because the current rate of cost decline in renewables is unprecedented in its speed, as is the willingness of increasing numbers of countries to impose CO2 taxes or the equivalent.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#184

Post by yongjik »

pfdietz wrote: post #179
unFou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.

You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time buildi…

Okay, then let's look at Japan, which pretty much shut down nuclear in 2011. And this is the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#/media/File:Ja...

Japan, one of the most technologically developed place in the world, cannot use renewables when they shut down nuclear. Instead they turn back to coal.

I'm not saying renewables are always inferior - e.g., California would be a perfect place for solar. But in every story I've heard of, when nuclear power is turned off fossil fuels pick up the slack.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#185

Post by pfdietz »

aksss wrote: post #175
pfdietz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

What is wrong in what I have said?

This statement:

"There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution."

is utter nonsense. I mean, it's as if you're asking me what's wrong with a statement that the Earth is flat.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#186

Post by loungelover31 »

AnssiH wrote: post #67
pmiller2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense have we “recovered” from supply chain disruptions? I go to the store and still routinely see empty shelves where TP should be; have experienced meat shortages in recent days; and stores are still rationing things like hand sanitizer (when you can find it), canned goods, meat, and rice.

> I go to the store and still routinely see empty shelves where TP should be; Huh, so that is why Google Maps keeps asking me whether TP was in stock every time I go the store - I did not realize there were still actual shortages on that elsewhere, I thought it was just a couple of days of panicing in March and that Google was just being weird / behind the times. FWIW, I haven't noticed such disruptions here (Finland…

I Imagine it takes a lot for Finland to run low on paper products

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#187

Post by unFou »

pfdietz wrote: post #179
unFou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.

You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time buildi…

Sure, so that partly explains why electricity costs so much more in Germany than France. But for a lay person (ie me), I can't help but compare the carbon emissions and air quality between the two countries, and attribute the difference to fossil-fuel vs nuclear power plants?

Also, I always assumed the lower renewable costs have come from economies of scale due mainly to China exploding it's energy production (which renewables makes a decent chunk of)

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#188

Post by pmiller2 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #112
adventured wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a mid-Atlantic state, the shortages (at all the major grocery stores) stopped after the first several weeks post initial hoarding rush. That's about two months ago now. The grocery stores here are stocked normally, you'd never know a pandemic were going on.

In my state we're going to have a serious problem if the outbreaks in our farming communities continue to grow. There are like 3 counties here that we are utterly dependent on for all our local food and they're all just now entering the "exponential" stage on the epidemiological curve.

California? TBH, if the farming areas of California get seriously affected, the entire country is going to suffer. California produces a lot of food.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#189

Post by jandrese »

danharaj wrote: post #38
jandrese wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North American natives were not good about writing stuff down, and by the time Europeans showed up it was almost a millennium later so the records would have been scanty even if the Europeans hadn't gone on insane rampages spreading death, disease, and destruction everywhere they went.

Oral traditions record, among other things, historical events.

Keeping an oral record detailed and accurate over a 900 year span is difficult for human beings sadly.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#190

Post by pfdietz »

yongjik wrote: post #184
pfdietz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time buildi…

Okay, then let's look at Japan, which pretty much shut down nuclear in 2011. And this is the result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#/media/File:Ja... Japan, one of the most technologically developed place in the world, cannot use renewables when they shut down nuclear. Instead they turn back to coal. I'm not saying renewables are always inferior - e.g., California would be a perfect place for solar. Bu…

Sigh.

First, 2011 is nine years ago. Utility scale solar has declined in cost by a factor of about 5 in the last decade. Decisions made even then do not say anything about how solar would compete today. Wind has also declined considerably in cost in that decade, although not as steeply.

Second, the argument I was making was that renewables beat new nuclear. I wasn't arguing that renewables beat fossil fuels unencumbered by CO2 charges, or even necessarily existing nuclear plants in which the construction and financing costs are sunk. So your observation is irrelevant to the claim I made.

I have to wonder why you guys never notice that the anti-renewables arguments you make are such non sequiturs. Myself, if I found defending my position required I resort to bogus logic, would reevaluate whether what I believed was actually true.

Post reply on HN