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

51–60 of 118 posts

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

#51

Post by hkeide »

godtoldmetodoit wrote: post #46
efnx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What health effects specifically are you talking about? There is a lot of shaky science in the nutrition field.

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

#52

Post by mikojan »

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…

> We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants.

We don't know that since to this day we do not know what cost a nuclear power plant actually imposes on society. The geological issue of ultimate storage for example is absurdly complex and remains unresolved. Here in Germany there's only very few potential locations[1]. None of them without potentially hazardous downsides.

[1]: https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Endlagerung/Bilder/BGR_Ber...

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

#53

Post by darksaints »

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…

> Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it does not seem we will without major technological leap.

We do have energy storage now, and it is already pretty damn good. Lower costs of production offset the cost of any inefficiencies of storage.

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

#54

Post by baddox »

BurningFrog wrote: post #25
cowmoo728 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make s…

1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia". If it can solve global warming in 20 years, that's an easy win to take. There is no emergency forcing anything faster, and I doubt that it's even possible to find a cure (that isn't worse than the disease) that works faster anyway.

I thought it’s more just that nuclear power plants aren’t economically or politically viable any more, since wealthy governments are no longer subsidizing them with their massive and growing nuclear weapons programs.

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

#55

Post by bryanlarsen »

wang_li wrote: post #26
cowmoo728 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make s…

Nuclear has huge hurdles and long implementation times because of hysterical anti-nuclear activists. It's not inherent in the engineering. If we care about climate change, it needs to be acknowledged that the activists created artificial delays and those should be removed forthwith.

Even China takes >5 years to build a nuclear plant. China normally builds non-controversial infrastructure 3X as fast as the US, so by that rule of thumb a nuclear plant would take 15 years in the US, and longer if you don't get rid of the anti-nuclear activists.

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

#56

Post by batmansmk »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12
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…

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…

Scale is missing in your analytsis. For instance in New England, the peak demand goes from 15GWh (average) to 16.5GWh down to 10GWh. Solar and wind on the other hand, need supplemental for 100% of its installed capacity the day there is no wind...

In France, 70% of the electricity is nuclear, 15% is hydro, pumped by the excess nuclear power generated at during the night.

Now for your arguments:

1. Wind goes from 0 to 50mph at sea. No reliable wind corridor exists. Even if Market Street in San Francisco makes me think otherwise frequently :)

2. The concept of wind proliferation has been debunked, at least on the European level. We built a network between Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Italy. It doesn't work.

3. If you don't have wind, putting 3 wind turbines won't help you more. Germany learned it the hard way where their CO2 emission flat lined since 2009 instead of going down despite their all in on the wind and solar energy. If you install 3 times more than what you need, you also have the side effect of making your renewable energy 3 times more carbone intensive. It kills solar as a viable, scalable option for instance.

4. Yes that would be the required breakthough to change the game. Right now batteries production pollute way too much and cost too much to be climate efficient.

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

#58

Post by jeffdavis »

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 daughter is vegan and sometimes I worry about her diet. A diet is what you do eat, how much, when, etc.; but being vegan only tells you what you don't eat.

Surprisingly little about vegan promotional stuff gives practical advice. It's mostly talking about how wasteful meat is and how foolish meat-eaters are.

Where is practical material about daily eating habits? Like, what should an athletic teenager eat, how much, and how often? Preferably with pictures of actual normal daily food, not "here's an arcane recipe requiring twelve ingredients and ten steps that you will eat once and forget about". And preferably with approximate nutritional value.

For adults it's probably pretty easy simply because adults don't need a lot of food to be healthy, and can skip meals without much downside. Adults are also in many ways less busy. A teenager needs food in the morning rushing to school, and probably needs to pack lunch also because there probably isn't a real vegan meal available at school to buy.

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

#59

Post by Luc »

mikojan wrote: post #52
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…

> We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. We don't know that since to this day we do not know what cost a nuclear power plant actually imposes on society. The geological issue of ultimate storage for example is absurdly complex and remains unresolved. Here in Germany there's only very few potential locations[1]. None of them without potentially hazardous d…

A surface level bunker would be fine. I really don't see why it needs to be deep under ground.

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

#60

Post by gfodor »

willis936 wrote: post #41
gfodor wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Well, my own prediction is a) that we will mitigate climate change and b) it will not be through any of the activism methods being pursued today. The reason we will succeed is because we are, luckily, converging on market incentives which will (as a side effect) fix climate change. Specifically, it seems likely that the next iteration of technology startups focused on energy should be able to create products that are both clean and radically reduce energy costs, and hence will be in-demand by the global markets. For example, small nuclear reactors, or solar products. These will be easily exportable, and as such will cause a virtuous cycle of iteration and innovation.

In retrospect, the advocacy of regressive policies like "everyone should fly less" will be just another chapter of the long serious of luddites thinking the only solution to problems is to reverse technological progress in the face of new, unexpected problems raised through the continual growth of the global economy.

Post reply on HN