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

201–205 of 205 posts

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

#201

Post by magnamerc »

RockIslandLine wrote: post #147
magnamerc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to discourage you, because everything counts, but I think the real problem with climate change isn't in the West, it's in the rest of the world. The West had the luxury of using cheap carbon in the early 20th century to industrialize and build out infrastructure. India and countries in Africa haven't had that luxury, therefore they are going to use as much carbon as is necessary to industrialize. It woul…

"It would be hypocritical for Westerners to criticize them for it." I'm not fully convinced. When you know better, you do better. And we now know better. "A did a stupid thing to achieve X result, therefore B must be allowed to do the same stupid thing" is not a great argument. There's more than one way to create economic value.

In countries like the DRC or Nigeria, with large oil and natural gas reserves, who are we to tell them that they can no longer exploit those reserves for their benefit? If we don't want oil and gas to be extracted for wealth, then we need to force market dynamics in such a way as to make the exploitation of oil and gas unprofitable worldwide. We have zero moral authority on dictating what these countries can and cannot do with their own resources

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

#202

Post by endymi0n »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #129
endymi0n wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be pro-nuclear as well, but I‘m not anymore. If you look at fully externalized cost including the consequences of uranium mining and storage of isotopes, renewables plus storage are close to breaking even. Except that even the minimum reactor size (for technical, security and proliferation reasons) mandates extremely large investment in terms of capital and space, which in turn leads to ownership by large i…

We are closing in or have hit peak renewable in several states and countries around the world. Unless we figure out a massive improvement to battery technology renewables are not going to help us in the same way they been.

[citation needed]

Wind power is continuously upgrading due to more possibilities opening with higher turbines, as well as old sites being upgraded.

Offshore wind is just getting profitable without subsidies, it's just getting started.

Solar is fitting in anywhere and with still falling prices will get ever more cost competitive even at low insulation sites.

Storage technology is just getting started as well with many investments from the past 5-10 years now reaching maturity (low-cobalt, silicon, solid state, fuel cells...)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be curious as to your sources.

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

#203

Post by toomuchtodo »

philipkglass wrote: post #174
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are correct. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/u-s-solar-panel-manufa...

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

#204

Post by eanzenberg »

markkat wrote: post #39
eanzenberg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not representative by current trends nor simulations (which themselves have huge error bars)

Do you have a citation for current simulations? The +9m to +31m isn't from simulations. It's from ice core sample and sediment analysis.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

"Most estimates of global mean sea-level rise this century fall below 2 m."

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

#205

Post by _ph_ »

omginternets wrote: post #199
_ph_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't that clear-cut. France has lots of nuclear power, but most of the power plants are getting quite old and eventually have to be dismantled and replaced. We will see how affordable the nuclear electricity is, after all costs have been paid. I don't think they will be replacing nuclear power plants with new ones, at current costs. Still, currently electricity is way cheaper and much cleaner than in Germany. I…

That's a very strange way of saying "it brought them cheap, abundant, safe, eco-friendly electricity for nearly 60 years." Yes, the infrastructure is aging. Yes, it needs to be replaced ... with more nuclear power. It has a proven track-record. It works well with the existing grid architecture (which avoids massive costs). It's eco-friendly. The thing that prevents nuclear plants from being built is not nuclear techn…

Please claim that nuclear is cheap only after all bills have been paid. Dismantling a reactor can cost a billion or more, the radioactive waste needs to be stored for millenia.

And France will show, that you can't just replace nuclear reactors. They are certainly trying, but modern reactors are increadibly espensive. So they are currently building... one.

Post reply on HN