Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change • Hacker News Board

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#21

Post by CaptArmchair » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

Hm. This article seems to wield several non-descriptive terms such as "deep decarbonization" or "green steel" while skipping discussing fossil fuels themselves.

One of the main reasons why we can't replace fossil fuels is because they are arguably the most efficient way of storing and transporting a huge potential of energy.

Think about it like this. It's easier to store a ton of coal for 50 years then it is to store the same amount of potential energy as electricity in a battery. It's more efficient to transport a ship filled with coal then it is to transport the same amount of energy as electricity through power lines.

Fossil fuels have a high energy yield per unit and they are abundant.

So, fossil fuels are far easier to scale towards diverse and large energy needs compared to clean energy sources.

The author hears the bells chime, but can't find them: he alludes to the higher price of "green steel" and how subsidies are a necessary to support these innovations. But he ultimately draws the wrong conclusion.

For one, he compares Denmark to China. Which represents 18% of the World's population. Sure, if China would switch to wind energy, the effects would be massive. But that's discounting vast economic differences between those countries.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#22

Post by apatters » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #13

apatters wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victory Gardens worked because they had a patriotic, pro-war, pro-America appeal. Sort of a "Keep America Great" thing. I suspect there's zero chance that this type of sentiment could be harnessed for "Hey, let's offset carbon emissions [of whom the #1 emitter is our chief political rival, China]" In fact that's the biggest problem with broadening support for decarbonization in general. The largest share of global ca…

Per the article: >While Victory Gardens were portrayed as a patriotic duty, 54% of Americans polled said they grew gardens for economic reasons while only 20% mentioned patriotism. (which cites the book Eating for victory : food rationing and the politics of domesticity ) Combined with the produce shows and competitions mentioned, I'd put indirect social pressure and saturation advertisement above the patriotism angl…

I guess if Chinese carbon turns half the planet into a desert we'll be able to use the economic motivation too!

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#23

Post by bryanlarsen » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

The article is advocating for increased nuclear. But energy is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's the piece that's the furthest along the deployment curve from emergence to diffusion to reconfiguration. According to the article the other pieces are cars, buildings, trucks, agriculture, aviation, shipping, steel, cement and plastics. Nuclear won't replace any of them.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#24

Post by gfodor » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

There are so many people who in one breath will say climate change is the biggest existential threat that will kill us all soon and when asked about nuclear will suddenly start hand wringing about politics and ROI.

When people start to truly panic and fear death you can be sure the nukes will start getting built quickly. It’s just too bad people on all sides can’t get there before reality sets in further, including those who claim to be legitimately fearful (if they aren’t pushing for nuclear now, and fast, they’re not truly fearful.)

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#25

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

cowmoo728 wrote: post #16

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make s…

1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia".

If it can solve global warming in 20 years, that's an easy win to take. There is no emergency forcing anything faster, and I doubt that it's even possible to find a cure (that isn't worse than the disease) that works faster anyway.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#26

Post by wang_li » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

cowmoo728 wrote: post #16

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make s…

Nuclear has huge hurdles and long implementation times because of hysterical anti-nuclear activists. It's not inherent in the engineering. If we care about climate change, it needs to be acknowledged that the activists created artificial delays and those should be removed forthwith.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#27

Post by bobajeff » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

>What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now?

Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima.

You might say those were caused by outdated tech or bad management. I'm someone who doesn't think my local or national government would be immune to those failings.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#28

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

Maximus9000 wrote: post #7

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.

10 years is s perfectly fine.

The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#29

Post by seanwilson » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

> What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now?

People aren't always rational, people will strongly resist changing their current viewpoints and people will very strongly resist making lifestyle changes. Politicians know this also when looking to get elected.

Reducing meat consumption and reducing the number of flights we take are other areas people need to look at but you'll be met with the same problems at a personal and political level.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#30

Post by mywittyname » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

bobajeff wrote: post #27

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

>What makes people so blind to the simple solution of the problem we have now? Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima. You might say those were caused by outdated tech or bad management. I'm someone who doesn't think my local or national government would be immune to those failings.

America has a huge problem with corporations bribing politicians to loosen "costly" regulations at the expense of our health and environment.

The country is already destroying itself with fracking and coal mining. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude more devastating. So while nuclear is plenty safe when handled correctly, it's completely understandable to feel like America is not a country which can be trusted to handle things correctly.