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

301–310 of 365 posts

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

#301

Post by pfdietz »

aksss wrote: post #223
pfdietz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be saying that renewables require improvement just due to the scale of the problem. But once renewables are sufficiently cheap, or once CO2 taxes cause fossil fuels to reflect their true cost, all that's required is just building more of them. This is a matter of scaling up, not improving the product, although improvement will almost certainly also occur, due to experience effects if nothing else. That re…

> seem to be saying that renewables require improvement due to the scale of the problem. Certainly they must be competitive in terms of energy density otherwise how can they substantially displace another energy source? Today renewable tech is not energy dense enough. > Once renewables are sufficiently cheap ..cheap in total lifecycle cost (not end user cost of panel), carbon negative and sufficiently energy dense (t…

> This implies regulatory disincentives to produce and consume fossil fuels. It's relevant to note that at no time in recorded human history have humans backed off the consumption of an energy source unless a better replacement (more dense) was found.

We have plenty of examples of humans forgoing technologies that turned out to have downsides. And it's a near universal truth that dire warnings were given about these restrictions, warnings that turned out to be vastly overblown. Technology does step up to the plate when market incentives are in place.

> Look in the graph below at where diesel is relative to a Li-Ion battery.

Li-ion batteries do not have to become as energy dense as diesel for fossil fuels to be displaced. Some applications don't require that energy density. We are already seeing battery electric buses, for example. In other cases something other than batteries can be used, for example hydrogen. In the worst case, net zero CO2 diesel can be made synthetically, using energy from renewables (and carbon from either CO2 capture or biomass; use of biomass would be limited to these edge cases.)

We are already at the point technically where a great deal of fossil fuel for transportation would be displaced if transport paid the true cost of CO2 emission.

> Fundamentally, for your position to be true you have to assume a miraculous leap forward in technology.

No, the roadblock is not technology, it's proper carbon pricing. That is the biggest obstacle.

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

#302

Post by iso1631 »

aksss wrote: post #146
pfdietz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.

There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information shar…

New nuclear (Hinkley C) in the uk costs £92.50/MWh -- 3200MWe, operational from 2025

Proposed new offshore wind farms cost £40/MWh, operational from 2023/2024

Nuclear was the answer 15 years ago. It's not now.

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

#303

Post by iso1631 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #219
aksss wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentioned nuclear. It is secondary to the conversion from coal to gas though in terms of near-term realized benefit. Nuclear requires a lot of dereg and testing that will be decades out if we start today. This assumes the barriers of popular rejection can be overcome. China might pull it off, but I don't see the US radiating enthusiasm for it. But yeah, since few places on earth can take advantage of hydro, I don't…

It does not require dereg, it requires investment. Just lile renewables do.

The UK is building a new nuclear plant and new offshore wind.

The nuclear plant has a strike price twice as high as the offshore wind.

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

#304

Post by nemo44x »

asveikau wrote: post #236
nemo44x wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Any other action is just going release the chemicals in slightly different but similar ways. So using your logic, why is being a selfish hedonist going to be better than the first option? You have just given a somewhat nihilistic argument that neither outcome matters. Meanwhile, have you tried both ways? My personal experience suggests that acting benevolently to others is much less stressful, makes one much happier,…

Good argument. For the record I don’t actually believe that Anti-social consumption is a quality way to live a life. But I do think it’s important to kick around opinions that make a moral appeal or claim to be “the way”.

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

#305

Post by ghaff »

kristjankalm wrote: post #300
restalis wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"indeed, these were some of the darkest/harshest time in our recorded history" I'm still inclined to believe that this is just nowadays optics. The life was very harsh in general for pretty much all but recent history. There were a lot of life risk vectors all around and the capacity to do something about that was modest at most. For us looking back only the major events stand out -- the pandemics like the black deat…

pretty much any metric you could come up with to "measure" civilisation -- literacy, urbanisation, economic output, monetary economy -- went to historic lows. slightly orthogonal to this, but the original motivation behind the 'dark ages' label was that for large parts of europe there are very few written records for the 5-7th centuries. e.g., we know practically nothing what happened in 5th century england because t…

Also Bede although that was written somewhat later (8th century).

When writing Why the West Rules for Now Ian Morris attempted to quantify the overall level of social development in the Western and Eastern cores in a very detailed way. (It used to be available online as a sort of appendix but I don't immediately see it.) In any case, you see this decline in the West after the fall of the Roman Empire that wasn't reversed for many centuries.

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

#306

Post by iso1631 »

pfdietz wrote: post #196
sethammons wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is not to avoid black swan events entirely, it is to have pockets that are missed by a given event. Earth goes cold? Well, good thing the moon base can preserve technology and knowledge for a hundred years. Solar flare? Good thing we have the under-ice base on Europa. Europa explodes? Good thing that we are still on Earth. Now if they all happen at the same time, like the sun dying, then that is why you want…

What event would leave the Earth less habitable than the Moon already is?

If you already have a self sufficient colony on the moon, but don't on the earth, when the catastrophic event occurs the moon will still be self sufficient.

The technology developed to live on the moon may allow it to be rapidly deployed on Earth, saving a large number of people, but if that technology doesn't exist then you're stuck

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

#307

Post by ghaff »

vbezhenar wrote: post #285
subsubzero wrote: post #58

How many people reading this have a years worth of food? Could any of us survive something similar to this eruption? I think covid really opened alot of peoples eyes to extreme worldwide disasters (volcanos, large earthquakes, pandemics) and how most are not prepared for it at all and yes these things do and will continue to keep happening.

Also consider that you need a community with weapons to defend your "years worth of food" from those who did not have that. You can see that even in peaceful times when nothing really happened, government collapsed and left their citizens to defend themselves from bandits. Imagine a global disaster. IMO that's the main issue with those hoarders. You can hoard as much as you can, but local gang will expropriate everyt…

Throughout the current situation, did it make sense to keep a few weeks of non-perishable food in the house in the event of quarantine and even temporary power outages? Sure.

But, if they were being logically consistent, anyone arguing for a 12 month supply of rice and beans should also have:

- Headed for a place in the hills/woods

- Stocked up on guns and ammo however unpopular an opinion that might be in certain circles

- A generator and gasoline

- Lots of large containers of water

- Seeds/tools/etc.

The list goes on. It's one thing to guard against short-term disruption to supply chains. It's another to basically guard against civilizational collapse. And if you just hoard 12 months of rice and beans in your suburban, much less urban, apartment, you're way overdoing it for the former and not preparing at all for the latter.

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

#308

Post by vxNsr »

pmiller2 wrote: post #170
leetcrew wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, I've seen so many memes lately comparing US grocery stores to soviet bread lines that I read a bit of that sentiment into your comment. it was a bit unsettling to see how much stuff was out of stock in the first few weeks of the crisis and wonder whether that was going to get better or worse. now the greatest hardship I face is having to settle for my second favorite brand of eggs sometimes. overall, I'm surpr…

I'm actually surprised there wasn't more supply chain disruption. Cleaning supplies, meat, TP, cold medicine (initially), disinfectants of any sort, canned goods, rice, dry beans, baking supplies, thermometers, masks, and gloves are the major things I noticed had gone "missing." My girlfriend and I could have certainly survived by modifying our diet and, as I mentioned, possibly buying a bidet. But, we are both fortu…

> This was nowhere near Soviet bread line status. In the Soviet Union, perhaps you had to stand in line for bread, but, at least there was bread.

Please stop. this is outright demonstrably false by every account.

It's a nice reminder that someone with a lot of intelligence and dare I say talent in one area can be so wrong in another.

But seriously dude, please educate yourself on the history of socialism and how it's totally and completely failed everywhere it was tried from Germany to Colombia to Sweden it's never worked and every attempt has either resulted in a civil war, a world war, or just years of economic pain to walk it back.

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

#309

Post by iso1631 »

zajio1am wrote: post #296
runarberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12 Years since, and I still don’t understand why the UK went after Iceland for reparations. Landsbanki was a private bank operating in the UK, and one of the owners Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson is still doing business in the UK, and is now among the top 100 billionaires in the UK (even though he caused a 6 billion euro damage that the UK taxpayers paid).

As i understand it: In EU/EEA there are are bank regulations specifying that banks may operate on a common market under supervision of regulating body where the bank is registered. As Landsbanki UK was branch office and not subsidiary company, it falled under Iceland regulation. These regulations also require that there is a deposit guarantee scheme for protection of depositors up to 100k EUR, based on country where…

In the runup to the crash, there were a lot of new adverts on the tube about amazing high interest rates with unknown Icelandic banks - far higher than the rates given by normal banks.

I was always told if something is too good to be true, it usually is.

Not only did lots of regular people put their money in this bank, a lot of public authorities did too, and the desposit protection doesn't really help Kent council (which lost £50m), or TFL (£40m), or whatever.

UK governments gambled, with big promises, and lost.

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

#310

Post by throwaway4666 »

vxNsr wrote: post #308
pmiller2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually surprised there wasn't more supply chain disruption. Cleaning supplies, meat, TP, cold medicine (initially), disinfectants of any sort, canned goods, rice, dry beans, baking supplies, thermometers, masks, and gloves are the major things I noticed had gone "missing." My girlfriend and I could have certainly survived by modifying our diet and, as I mentioned, possibly buying a bidet. But, we are both fortu…

> This was nowhere near Soviet bread line status. In the Soviet Union, perhaps you had to stand in line for bread, but, at least there was bread. Please stop. this is outright demonstrably false by every account. It's a nice reminder that someone with a lot of intelligence and dare I say talent in one area can be so wrong in another. But seriously dude, please educate yourself on the history of socialism and how it's…

Were you educated in the American school system by any chance?
Post reply on HN