Live data from Hacker News

A graph that should be front-page news

lyrebirddreaming.com

421–430 of 469 posts

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#421
tldr: Deploy a TON of solar. Use the excess production to charge batteries (EVs, BESS), chemical storage (Ammonia), green hydrogen for industrial uses, heat pump for HVAC, CO2 as refrigerant.

Deploy solar everywhere. On roofs (inefficient), plug in solar, vertical solar, solar on reservoirs, highways. Everywhere. Use excess production!

Phase 1

1) Buy only EVs[1]

2) Use EVs as energy storage. Pay the EV owners because power price goes negative (or worst case charge at no cost).

3) This will immediately capture clean energy that is being curtailed (~20% or more)

4) Without 3 in place, we can't accelerate clean energy, because curtailment will increase, making it unproductive.

5) Pay the EV owners to supply power back to the grid. They now replace peaker plants, which is the most expensive part of electricity bills.

6) EV storage becomes the new grid, creating a gigantic energy reservoir. Extremely resilient energy storage. (think just like the kube/containers, cattle/pets, etc)

With the scale of EV car adoption, we'll get better and better at batteries, making them significantly cheaper. This will allow us to build battery swapping infrastructure for big vehicles. Most likely, this will be sodium or solid state.

Phase 2: All big vehicles (trucks/buses) can use battery swapping stations spread out everywhere. The battery swapping stations serve multiple functions, they are an essential part of the short term battery storage (multi-day), a layer above the EV storage. And they also provide the battery swap infrastructure. They get paid for being charged (negative price) and then again for the trucks using them. We shouln't build charging infrastructure for big vehicles, it is capital intensive, requires a lot of expensive machinery, real-time transmission capacity, real estate, wasted time, etc.

Long term/seasonal: Build Ammonia --> electricity emergency plants. We need ammonia at a massive scale anyways for fertilizer. The best outcome would be green ammonia (green hydrogen), using excess power from clean energy.

Industrial uses (heat): Green hydrogen on demand, freshly produced from solar. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule, explosive and corrosive, won't work with any storage.

All heating and cooling: Use heat pumps. Use CO2 as refrigerant and ban everything else. We are going to see 100x deployment of ACs everywhere, all of the third world will buy AC as their incomes increase.

[1] Govts could ban all ICE vehicles, but they wont. Fossil fuel lobby wont let them. For the fossil fuel shills who are invitably going to comment that EV doesn't work for them, please continue using your EV for your daily commute from Alberta to San Diego. There will be enough used ICE cars for the next 20 years.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#422

It's going to have to be like 20C hotter before some people will accept that it isn't "just summer".

At that point it will be a self correcting issue when huge swaths of the human population dies from starvation due to not being able to produce enough food. It is preferable to do something prior to then.

Unfortunately it's not going to selectively kill reality-deniers.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. If solar panels are good enough and cheap enough, if grid storage and battery density improve fast enough, the economic costs of staying on fossil fuels will create huge pressure in the political space and economic competition. You can overwhelm the issue. We shouldn’t HAVE to do this, our politicians should represent our desires and our long term necessities. But that’s clearly not an easy problem to solve, and…

Hmmm, I remember what happened when we all got more 'free time' by using computers to do things that took us long doing manually. Making electricity more 'green' is of course necessary but on the backdrop of the current capitalistic system, it will simply lead to more electricity being consumed. See current uptake by LLM data centers.

Yes, decarbonization necessarily means higher electricity consumption. Electrifying transportation, home heating, cooking, industrial processes, etc will mean an explosion of electricity demand. This means generating a lot more electricity without burning fossil fuels, and using that electricity more efficiently.

The good news: there’s a lot to build, a lot to invent, and a lot of work to do, and the solutions to these problems are not present in the training data. If you’re worried about how you’re going to pay the bills now that AI ate your job writing glue code for some niche subscription SaaS product, here’s your answer.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#424

I make this prediction: In 5 years, we will have learned that the red line was in error, and the temperatures will be in the bottom half of the graph. I know this because every prediction of climate doom turned out to be false. Entire nations were going to disappear under rising sea levels. It has not happened. I'm not saying no land sinks, but sea levels are not rising rapidly enough to prevent Al Gore (author of "A…

Others have corrected your confusion between prediction and observation. Lets instead show what we have already seen, today, that was previously predicted. Kiribati and Tuvalu have measurable loss of land due to rising sea levels that is impacting people today. About 80% of the Maldives Islands will likely be uninhabitable within the next 25 years. The Marshall Islands have lost 18 out of their average 200cm above me…

Please check back in 5 years.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#425
post #36

I make this prediction: In 5 years, we will have learned that the red line was in error, and the temperatures will be in the bottom half of the graph. I know this because every prediction of climate doom turned out to be false. Entire nations were going to disappear under rising sea levels. It has not happened. I'm not saying no land sinks, but sea levels are not rising rapidly enough to prevent Al Gore (author of "A…

The red line is not a prediction, it is a measurement.

1 in every 100 measurements will give a 1-in-100 result.

Please check back in 5 years.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because a heat pump is just an "evil" AC running in reverse I keep hearing that, and then I keep hearing people tell me that you can't just put an heat pump, run it in "reverse" and "pretend" to have AC. That seems to be a case where the theory is here, but in practice the applicances are just optimized for one part, or the other. (Also, heating is often done by heating water in radiators, and cooling by cooling th…

I dont get this. In Australia we have had reverse cycle air conditioning for decades. These are heat pumps that both heat and cool. I have 15kW of installed heat pump tech at home and run my whole house off grid, despite mainta8ning a grid connection. The systems run as heaters in winter, and air conditioning in summer. They are very efficient, enough so that I dont worry about our solar and battery being able to kee…

>The appliances are very common, and Ive seen them throughout much of Asia, too. Its like Europe and the US are just discovering this tech

It's almost as if the Australian and Asian climate are different from the European one...

Fontainebleau forest, vs. the Australian Outback, what's the difference, really?

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#428
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But those are unreliable as well... Can you tell me how many research papers on this specific subject you have read, before coming to that conclusion? Hint: chances are you're correct (!). Size of the error bars, timeframe(s) talked about, how data was gathered, how results were processed etc, that is what such papers are about. Educate yourself! (Wikipedia is usually a good start)

None. It goes against my common sense. That is why I am asking what accuracy can this method give. I am asking that to people who are already seemingly convinced that the methods listed (fossil records, ice-cores) can be accurate..

Common sense?!? That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That you're intimately familiar with.

Not to things occurring when your great-great-great-great... (repeat a couple 1000x) ...great-great-great-grandparents were around.

Maybe you'd be so kind & at least check part of a Wikipedia article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin...

10min to go from clueless to "I've read something about how this knowledge came about".

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#429
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None. It goes against my common sense. That is why I am asking what accuracy can this method give. I am asking that to people who are already seemingly convinced that the methods listed (fossil records, ice-cores) can be accurate..

Common sense?!? That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis. That you're intimately familiar with. Not to things occurring when your great-great-great-great... (repeat a couple 1000x) ...great-great-great-grandparents were around. Maybe you'd be so kind & at least check part of a Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin... 10min to go from clueless to "I've read…

> That applies to things you're experiencing on a daily basis.

That we cannot accurately look into the past unless we explicitly record it, is something that I experience on a daily basis.

Seriously, if you are so convinced, then why don't you just give me an accuracy measure and reasons to support it? I am not interested in anymore articles that does not contain an explicit accuracy claims and reasons to support the same.

So please understand this. It is not that I am questioning the existence of such techniques. I am questioning their accuracy/reliability..

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph represents 44 years of statistics, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But you can not determine how these stats relate to longer term time frames such as a 100 years or more. Obviously the article wants you to believe the absolute worst about how these modern indicators compare back even further than the data shows, but how much of that is confirmation bias, and how much is actual science?

It seems like you are ignoring the hundreds of other signals that tell a similar story to this graph?

Not ignoring anything, just commenting on what the graph says as a singular piece of evidence. And it's "the hundreds of other signals that tell a similar story" that can lead to confirmation bias (ie. following a narrative arc) and potentially interpreting this piece of evidence more strongly than it actually deserves.
Post reply on HN