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

U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 368 posts

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#221

Post by 7thaccount »

Retric wrote: post #200
7thaccount wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has majorly been transitioning to both natural gas AND renewables. In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along…

The most economical option is it have a massive oversupply of wind and solar as their significantly less expensive than any alternative. You can model this as (cost per kWh of cheapest alternative) / (cost of rentable per kWh) = marginal oversupply you want. So, if hypothetically Solar was 2c/kWh and peaking natural gas was 6c/kWh then you would want to add more solar until 3kWh of new Solar only offset 1kWh of natur…

There is a problem with the massive oversupply idea though. It assumes wind locations are fairly randomized and I don't think that is entirely true. Meaning you can build more in area "x", but if it isn't blowing a quarter mile away, it probably isn't blowing near you either. Think of this more as a conceptual argument. Now oversupply would help if it's just blowing a little bit I suppose.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#223

Post by FrojoS »

est31 wrote: post #152
FerretFred wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>coal to natural gas Fossil fuel to .. fossil fuel. Sigh.

CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...

We need to get to zero (or negative) net carbon emissions. Building brand new infracstructure for gas is counterpruductive to say the least.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#224

Post by hunta2097 »

macspoofing wrote: post #145
originalvichy wrote: post #3

As a European this is the main fear I have during this election. 4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. Not that I’m super proud of how we are doing in my country, but it can’t get worse.

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (o…

Now if we could get Australian politicians to stop taking that coal money...

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#225

Post by ben_w »

alehul wrote: post #192
7thaccount wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has majorly been transitioning to both natural gas AND renewables. In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along…

> A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway I don’t think any of these solutions are viable…

This already occurred back when renewables were nothing more than the fantasies of tree-hugging hippies like my mum.

Before I left the UK, the flat I lived in had two electricity rates, with the night rate being significantly cheaper then the day rate [0]. This meant the water heater and the (electric) storage heaters [1] were powered at night, when schools and offices used no power.

[0] I’m not certain, but I think it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_heater

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#226

Post by thehappypm »

sampo wrote: post #188
est31 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...

> CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.

It's a step, though. Methane is inherently unstable and won't stick around in the atmosphere forever once we stop emitting it. CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean very slowly and with acidification as a consequence.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#227

Post by Sharlin »

Ekaros wrote: post #18
Sharlin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and the EU can, and should. "Polluter pays" should become the standard policy in international trade in numerous other ways, too.

Wouldn't "user pays" be more logical. I think it is quite dishonest to blame China when consumption happens in Europe or USA... All of the pollution should be transported in calculations where consumption happens.

The end result should be largely the same regardless of whether the externality compensation takes the form of an import tariff or user-facing retail tax. Either way customer prices rise and manufacturer/importer/seller margins drop. Tariffs are a blunt tool, but so are most consumer-end taxes as well. But coming up with the sort of Pigovian precision instrument, that attempts to fairly reflect the actual lifecycle externalities of a good or a service, is probably going to be almost impossible for several reasons.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#228

Post by TeMPOraL »

abyssin wrote: post #162
macspoofing wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (o…

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.

Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. Even if everything around us would become 10x more efficient - which already would require many scientific breakthroughs - that's just multiplying the exponential growth curve by a constant factor of 0.1. A little bit of relief, but it fundamentally doesn't change anything.

And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach.

Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#229

Post by CapriciousCptl »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #94
bamboozled wrote: post #64

I hope I’m wrong but it seems the world may have to leave the United States in the 1950s where it currently plans to reside. Seriously, it’s time counties who want to improve the situation need move on from worrying about what the United sates is doing because it doesn’t look like much will be happening for a long time.

If this were the 50's again we'd have an 84% marginal rate on income over $400,000. Which we would use to fund our infrastructure and energy projects.

It's hard to imagine anyone would keep working for that $400,001th dollar if they only got to keep 16 cents of it. Surgeons, for instance, can literally stop taking patients and go to Aruba when they get near the bend. High-dual income households is another example-- imagine a double-physician household where one of them is taxed at 84%-- they'd save money by one of them not working at all considering daycare expenses.

Actual taxes on the 1% in the 50s weren't really that much higher, despite the marginal rates-- https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#230

Post by thehappypm »

abyssin wrote: post #162
macspoofing wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (o…

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.

Um, this is already happening, in a big way.

Cars are more fuel efficient than ever. I own an SUV and average 30.1 MPG. Imagine that in 2000. Light bulbs are overwhelmingly LED these days. New homes are much more insulating than ever. Smart homes are less wasteful.

Post reply on HN