Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#831

Post by asdff » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #760

ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

Nuclear power can be fast to build. It would need to be constructed in volume, with immutable designs. Right now, America builds so few nuclear plants that they are essentially all one-off designs. Mass production is key here. Vis-à-vis costs, the government can poof into existence trillions of dollars with no ill effects. Cost is an easily overcome obstacle. If a mandate came down to produce 1000 new nuclear reactor…

Fun fact: Nixon actually wanted 1000 new nuclear reactors by 2000.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#832

Post by bccdee » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

shookness wrote: post #822

ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

Small modular nuclear reactors could be an answer to your primary concern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor https://www.nuscalepower.com/

Yeah I hear this every time, but very few small modular reactors (SMRs) have actually been built on account of economic and safety barriers to building them [1].

Now, I'm sure these are soluble problems. I'm by no means anti-SMR. But most of the actual serious proposals I've heard discussed for decarbonization lean much more heavily on already-existing technologies such as solar panels, which are getting cheaper and more efficient every year and which we are putting in the grid right now.

Most of the time, when I hear people talking about SMRs, it's as an excuse to do nothing. "This research tech will solve the climate problem, so all we need to do now is wait for it to pay off." Like the original poster in this thread, who claimed that a lack of investment in nuclear somehow proves that things aren't really that bad.

Apparently, the IPCC does expect and hope for substantial increases in nuclear power as a portion of our energy supply [2][3], but "[a]chieving a rapid decarbonization of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology," presumably because nuclear on its own is not enough, and because SMRs are too experimental to lean on in any substantial way.

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

[2]: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048732

[3]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/press-statements/the-ipc...

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#833

Post by ip26 » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #641

habosa wrote: post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

I've been saying this for years, but I finally get why "Just. Tax. It." doesn't work. The voters. They turn out in droves when it comes to taxes on something as visible as the price they pay at the pump or when it comes to the oil patch in Alberta. It's politically easier to create import duties or to go into debt and subsidize things. The level of taxation we need to stop a complete catastrophe is higher than people…

It seems like you could make it popular with a carbon dividend to every citizen. If you use less carbon than average, by god you make money!

But most times the tax is proposed, special interests on the left insist the revenue must be spent on & sink the whole effort.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#834

Post by daxfohl » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

anyonecancode wrote: post #623

jsonne wrote: post #360

If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. Governments need to tax CO2 emissions on the business side and pour the money into carbon capture technology in the private space through investment and perhaps some sort of bounty program (you get $x for each ton you…

> If there is anything covid has taught me its that collective action isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality. If climate change plays out the way the pandemic has, I think we will have collective action, but it'll be uneven and fall short. We'll avoid the most dire outcomes, but blow right past acceptable outcomes. Many, ma…

It'll play out like the recycling/renewables industry. Some people will do things that are easy and catchy, there will be some net gains, but much of it will eventually turn to barely break-even or worse, like the unsustainable single-stream recycling or trendy-but-usually-fails-before-breaking-even things like reusable straws.

The world is just going to change and we'll either figure out how to live with it (probably) or we won't (if there's a mass biome collapse that leaves us foodless, unless we can generate 9B people's worth of food from bacteria or something).

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#835

Post by lake_vincent » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

tda wrote: post #829

merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

As pointed out in he comments below, the climate crisis will reduce political stability. And stability is essential to ensure that there will be a strong enough society left to properly decommission a nuclear plant when it will be EOL in 50 years. Decommissioning is likely to be vastly more expensive than initial construction, and after that you still need to figure out how to make sure no one will want to touch the…

"capitalism should sort it out"

Oh, you sweet summer child!

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#836

Post by jltsiren » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #760

ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

Nuclear power can be fast to build. It would need to be constructed in volume, with immutable designs. Right now, America builds so few nuclear plants that they are essentially all one-off designs. Mass production is key here. Vis-à-vis costs, the government can poof into existence trillions of dollars with no ill effects. Cost is an easily overcome obstacle. If a mandate came down to produce 1000 new nuclear reactor…

Nuclear power could have been fast to build if we had kept building it. We did not, and most of the people who knew how to do it are now retired or dead. Because nuclear power had no future for decades, few young people chose to make a career in it. The workforce needed for designing, building, and operating nuclear power at scale no longer exists and cannot be trained quickly enough. That alone would take 10+ years, which we do not have.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#837

Post by asdff » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

whymauri wrote: post #824

bradleyjg wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ordinary people are tasked with saving the planet I can’t read minds, but my sense is that much of what individuals are asked to do is knowingly conservation theater. If you want to put a positive spin on that, you can say it makes them feel more committed to supporting the regulatory changes necessary by building a sense of shared sacrifice. The cynical version writes itself.

My house recently started vigorously composting. I can't help but wonder how many centuries of daily composting we would need to offset the climate impact of the plastic composting bin, composable bags, and composting infrastructure. Feels good, but no impact. Sigh.

The impact will be felt on your garden yields though. Vermipost might as well be a performance enhancing drug.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#838

Post by ihsw » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #641

habosa wrote: post #621

Just. Tax. It. We have warmed the earth because we love comfort and money. We will never stop loving those things. So instead let's use the same systems to fix this (or at least slow things down). As an individual my largest carbon impact is air travel. I like to go places, it's one of the main things I work to afford. Every single plane ticket I take should have a tax which is used to offset or capture the carbon em…

I've been saying this for years, but I finally get why "Just. Tax. It." doesn't work. The voters. They turn out in droves when it comes to taxes on something as visible as the price they pay at the pump or when it comes to the oil patch in Alberta. It's politically easier to create import duties or to go into debt and subsidize things. The level of taxation we need to stop a complete catastrophe is higher than people…

Most people would be okay with taxes if they decided what it was spent on, it is their money afterall.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#839

Post by dantheman » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #783

mywittyname wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power can be fast to build. It would need to be constructed in volume, with immutable designs. Right now, America builds so few nuclear plants that they are essentially all one-off designs. Mass production is key here. Vis-à-vis costs, the government can poof into existence trillions of dollars with no ill effects. Cost is an easily overcome obstacle. If a mandate came down to produce 1000 new nuclear reactor…

> the government can poof into existence trillions of dollars with no ill effects This is because the federal reserve's printed money goes basically into treasuries and stocks. The rich save basically all of their money. If they decided to spend it on real-world goods, there would be huge inflation. But it's probably all nil. The cost of building enough nuclear power plants with economy of scale is probably near the…

Except that you miss the part where solar and wind need normal power plants to provide power when they aren't running.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#840

Post by jasonlaramburu » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

>Those periods of near zero production can last non-trivial amounts of time no realistic battery could provide for

There are many options (electrochemical, gravity etc) for grid-scale energy storage of various durations that are commercially-viable today. 0-8 hours tends to be the most needed duration in the US but there are solutions that can store power for days or weeks without losses. Even in a 100% nuclear or gas-fired world storage is critical. During the Texas blackout both nuclear and gas assets failed due to the cold temperatures.