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

There Is Gas Under the Tundra

lensculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#31

Post by prolikewh0a »

goatlover wrote: post #24
eksemplar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really practical though? I mean, it makes sense financially and in terms of how we usually do transition, but we’re frankly running out of time, and maybe we need to be radical rather than practical. I’m old, I’ve seen how we’ve ignored the warnings for the past 30 years. Worse yet, if you ask people on when sollutuons can be ready, they say 10-20 years, and we only have one decade left to stop our own destru…

Why is it destruction and not just it will be more costly to adapt? Why suppose that we can't figure out a way to scrub C02 from the atmosphere, or offset it some other way? Why can't humanity, who managed to survive an ice age with stone aged tools, figure out a way to survive a warmer planet with modern tech?

[flagged]

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#32

Post by Flip-per »

throwaway12iii wrote: post #23
thrower123 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The radicals fucked us all over by agitating against nuke power in the 70s. Free love and climate change, man.

The ocean is filled with nuclear waste world wide from one plant leaking. You can't eat food grown in huge areas of Europe. The last generation plants were a military money hack. The plants that got funded interestingly were good at producing materials used for bombs. Not good designs that are financially viable without military money. Or even designs that are safe. They are too expensive to close down properly. That…

> You can't eat food grown in huge areas of Europe.

Do you mean Tschernobyl? It depends how you define 'huge areas in Europe', there is a good overview on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#National_an...

According to this table, 10 % of Austria is contamined with 37–185 kBq/m2 (lowest contamination of this table). You can eat food grown anywhere in Austria, I do not know where 'food not edible' starts.

But just the fact that you now have to discuss such things is wrong enough.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#33

Post by paganel »

thrower123 wrote: post #29
paganel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As things stand right now nuclear power is a single point of failure because (as the OP rightly points out) it has been used and is still being used by different military organizations in order to build nuclear bombs, which nuclear bombs can literally wipe us all at this very moment, not in 10 years’ time, not in 20 years’ time, now. Yeah, I know the whole talk about how nuclear bombs have stopped a possible WWIII in…

I can make a truck bomb from commercial fertilizers, or I can grow a whole bunch of wheat and corn. Just because you can fuck things up with a particular technology isn't a great reason for disallowing the positive usages of it.

It’s pretty hard to blow up the entire world with commercial fertilizers while we can literally make the whole world un-habitable right now with “the help” of the existing nuclear arsenal. Scale matters.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#34

Post by thrower123 »

krisdol wrote: post #27
eej71 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm old too and I truly believe that we will continue to be here 10-20 years from now with roughly the same world we've always had.

10-20 years ago places I lived and remembered being quite heavily snowy in the winter just get a bit of dusting at best now. New England has lost over 600 ski areas. There are fewer and fewer places with good enough conditions to grow coffee (a shame as I feel like the culture around fine coffee is just now coming into existence in the US). Enjoy oysters, clams, and scallops while you can as ocean acidification is ki…

At least with the ski areas, gross mismanagement had a significant part to play. Saddleback mountain doesn't get any less snow than Sugarloaf or Sunday River, but it has been repeatedly run into the ground.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#35

Post by mrob »

fooker wrote: post #30
nradov wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cold is easier to survive than heat. Humans can't do any useful work outside or even survive once the web bulb temperature reaches a certain point. For example at 90% humidity the temperature limit is 35℃. Some tropical areas will become essentially uninhabitable. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02082017/heatwaves-deadly...

>For example at 90% humidity the temperature limit is 35℃. This seems weird. A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit, and people seem to have adapted.

>A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit

Where? As far as I can tell, the highest wet-bulb temperatures are around the Persian Gulf, and although they sometimes come close to the human survival limit, they do not yet exceed it.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/22/humidity-may-prove-...

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#37

Post by gwbas1c »

eksemplar wrote: post #13
makomk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, the shift to renewable electricity and the focus on reducing emissions means more demand for natural gas, since gas generators produce less pollution than coal and are better at responding to changes in demand caused by variation in the renewable energy supply.

Is that really practical though? I mean, it makes sense financially and in terms of how we usually do transition, but we’re frankly running out of time, and maybe we need to be radical rather than practical. I’m old, I’ve seen how we’ve ignored the warnings for the past 30 years. Worse yet, if you ask people on when sollutuons can be ready, they say 10-20 years, and we only have one decade left to stop our own destru…

Flow batteries, where charged electrolyte can be stockpiled, are under heavy development. These would allow us to finally make the grid 100% fossil fuel free.

Also, I firmly believe that we can figure out how to make things like methane and oil from biological processes; it's just that extracting it from the ground is cheaper.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think we're quickly getting to a point where this is a political problem instead of a technology problem.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#38

Post by gglitch »

eej71 wrote: post #22
eksemplar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really practical though? I mean, it makes sense financially and in terms of how we usually do transition, but we’re frankly running out of time, and maybe we need to be radical rather than practical. I’m old, I’ve seen how we’ve ignored the warnings for the past 30 years. Worse yet, if you ask people on when sollutuons can be ready, they say 10-20 years, and we only have one decade left to stop our own destru…

I'm old too and I truly believe that we will continue to be here 10-20 years from now with roughly the same world we've always had.

I'm up for a bet on whether Miami will be the same in 20 years.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#39

Post by eej71 »

gglitch wrote: post #38
eej71 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm old too and I truly believe that we will continue to be here 10-20 years from now with roughly the same world we've always had.

I'm up for a bet on whether Miami will be the same in 20 years.

As in you think it would be "underwater" like venice?

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#40

Post by AlexCoventry »

thrower123 wrote: post #29
paganel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As things stand right now nuclear power is a single point of failure because (as the OP rightly points out) it has been used and is still being used by different military organizations in order to build nuclear bombs, which nuclear bombs can literally wipe us all at this very moment, not in 10 years’ time, not in 20 years’ time, now. Yeah, I know the whole talk about how nuclear bombs have stopped a possible WWIII in…

I can make a truck bomb from commercial fertilizers, or I can grow a whole bunch of wheat and corn. Just because you can fuck things up with a particular technology isn't a great reason for disallowing the positive usages of it.

In terms of pound-per-equivalent-pounds-of-TNT, the most powerful nuclear weapon is 7 million times more powerful than ANFO. That's a lot of fertilizer!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#RE_factor_examp...

See the ANFO and the "B41 nuclear bomb" entries in the tables linked there.

Post reply on HN