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

Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 118 posts

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

#41

Post by willis936 »

gfodor wrote: post #24
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 t…

That’s the thing about this issue: humans aren’t built to deal with it.

> When people start to truly panic and fear death you can be sure the nukes will start getting built quickly.

By this point it is far too late for any action to have meaningful consequence. People are raising hands now, when the effects are practically nonexistent on a human timescale, because if we wait until the effects affect us, then we are well and truly fucked. Society won’t collapse this century, but it might in a few hundred years.

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

#43

Post by throwaway100773 »

kardos wrote: post #32
bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

> nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. Are we anywhere near the limits of what can be done with time-of-use pricing? If we flatten the "duck curve" then nuclear is a good match.

You would need utility scale storage to flatten the load curve. The peaks and super peaks are not going away until there is a viable storage mechanism with enough capacity. We are talking significant changes in demand between even the early afternoon and the super peak in almost all load areas (pjm California ercot). The other alternative is a massive buildout or behind the meter solar which theoretically could solve this issue.

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

#44

Post by bashmelek »

gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

Growing food in one's yard is a good use, better than the USA's biggest crop: grass. In the log term, we ought to also build housing that has smaller lawns. Those who do have large lawns could help by growing their own food, trees or having a more low-maintenance plan for it

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

#45

Post by thrownblown »

api wrote: post #33
bobajeff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

One thing those disasters have shown about nuclear is that a single accident -- even if there is little loss of life -- absolutely ruins the economics of nuclear power. Even an accident with no loss of life will cost an absolute fortune to clean up and decommission due to how hard it is just to handle and transport the material. Prior to Fukushima nuclear power was fairly economical in Japan. Post-Fukushima and in re…

I'm not doubting you but, do you have some stats to back this up? I'm curious.

I would imagine the expense is difficult to determine and quite controversial. Especially when you consider the costs of the effects to the ocean/environment and whatnot that aren't being borne by the japanese people.

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

#46

Post by godtoldmetodoit »

efnx wrote: post #14
bjoli wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how much arable land is used to produce animal feed (about 50%) there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially considering how inefficient meat production is.

The first and easiest thing we can each do, individually, is eat less meat (or better - no meat). My wife and I have been mostly vegan for a year for health reasons and it’s surprisingly easy. Throw on the eco benefit and it’s a very good feeling. Very worth it.

My wife and I made the switch to vegetarian about 3 months ago, and it's been much easier then I expected. I love meat, but knowing both the health and ecological impacts I just couldn't justify my consumption anymore.

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

#47

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #43
kardos wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. Are we anywhere near the limits of what can be done with time-of-use pricing? If we flatten the "duck curve" then nuclear is a good match.

You would need utility scale storage to flatten the load curve. The peaks and super peaks are not going away until there is a viable storage mechanism with enough capacity. We are talking significant changes in demand between even the early afternoon and the super peak in almost all load areas (pjm California ercot). The other alternative is a massive buildout or behind the meter solar which theoretically could solve…

What the above poster is suggesting is adjusting demand dynamically based on price. That requires consumers to throttle their own usage (probably using automated systems that know the real-time price of electricity). You can run the dishwasher or charge your car or cool your home when electricity is cheap.

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

#48

Post by topkai22 »

I always find it odd that atmospheric carbon capture isn't a greater part of the conversation on climate change. It's basically assumed that we'll need to be able to take carbon out of the system to meet our goals, but so few people are willing to mention it as part of the overall solution to transitioning to a net negative economy. It seems like a technology that still has a lot of runway left before we start hitting any sort of fundamental limits on efficiency.

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

#49

Post by hkeide »

bjoli wrote: post #3
gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

Considering how much arable land is used to produce animal feed (about 50%) there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially considering how inefficient meat production is.

That's not true in the US. Less than 15% of the feed used for animals would be edible for humans, and much of the land in the US is not suitabe for growing crops other than grass. Most of the food given to animals are farm waste products and leaves etc.

Using regenerative farming, cows can even be net carbon negative, meanwhile a lot of human feed uses artificial fertilizer which is a big contributor to carbon emissions.

See White Oak Pastures for an example (verified by third parties): https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019...

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

#50

Post by ptah »

michaelt wrote: post #31
gdubs wrote: post #2

In terms of agriculture, we could use basic research into perennial staple crops. [1] It’s a promising area, but still a ways off. The result, as mentioned in the article, is less soil disturbance and more long-term carbon sequestration. From a policy perspective, Victory Gardens [2] were a successful strategy during WWII. It would be great to mobilize a similar effort to get people growing food in their own backyard…

I don't know if you've ever tried growing food in your back yard to eat? It's a fine hobby if you enjoy gardening and find satisfaction in the honest simplicity and hard work of digging over soil, weeding, and spreading manure. But the truth is: supermarket food is incredibly cheap, and you'll be putting in 50 hours of labour to grow $20 worth of vegetables. If you enjoy the process and don't mind not getting much ou…

perennials require less work than annuals
Post reply on HN