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

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

#901

Post by kmonsen » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #318

nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

You're not really disagreeing with the previous poster. We need to do what you suggest as quickly as possible. That means some things that depend on that carbon downstream should be stopped, replaced with alternatives or at the very least heavily discouraged while a market for substitutes created. But how do we decide which ones to do first? Ideally the cheapest and biggest impact. Our best tool for doing so is proba…

So it's easy if all countries agree. If that is not the case you need to find out how much carbon from the ground was used in each item at your border. At that points it becomes rocket science?

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

#902

Post by krona » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

ptkd wrote: post #740

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…

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…

> A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized

500 days for a small modular reactor (450MW) https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...

At least, that's what the brochure says.

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

#903

Post by eloff » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #876

slashdev wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this makes so much sense. But when you look at the costs involved it's far cheaper and less risky to deploy 2x in renewables and a bunch of energy storage plus some gas plants and long distance transmission. New innovations in nuclear maybe have a chance to change this, but renewables are still getting cheaper so even if they succeed they must still beat the moving target. In another world where we had embraced…

"Markets will allocate capital according to risks" Like you know, the risk to end organised civilisation through climate change. Haha, funny

Unfortunately markets are not good at accounting for those kinds of external risks (but they could be with the right incentives, like a carbon tax.)

It's a tragedy of the commons scenario. I don't understand why politicians don't just do the hard/right thing. Supposedly that's why we have them. If they always just do the popular thing we could cut them out of the picture and go to direct democracy. I'm not advocating for that, but we need politicians to step up and do their jobs competently.

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

#904

Post by m4rtink » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #827

h1fra wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree Nuclear is the most probable solution it's not easy to build and fuel is very sparse. France who is leading the way is 100% depend on other countries, I'm not sure it will play well in the coming years > 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia. And the second issue is to focus on electricity production, while there is a ton a other things cr…

> You won't save the planet if you still have thousands of ships on the sea and planes in the air Aviation contributes only 2% of global air pollution, though maybe 5% of global greenhouse effect (due to the high altitudes airplanes operate at). Textile production, indeed, contributes more to climate change than aviation and maritime shipping combined [1]. However, with abundant electricity you can switch many transp…

Synthetic aviation fuels are effectively a fuel-air battery as long as you pull in CO2 from the air making it.

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

#905

Post by matkoniecz » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

biztos wrote: post #814

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…

> long-duration battery solutions This isn't practical everywhere, but on the island of El Hierro (Canary Islands) there is a wind-and-battery solution in the form of a wind-pumped hydro-electric station. In effect there is a big pool of water acting as a battery and the wind turbine "charges" it. When I ran across it on a trip to the island I was really impressed. Very original solution! https://www.researchgate.net…

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Zar_zbiornik.jpg https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektrownia_Por%C4%85bka-%C5%B... - another one from Poland, likely one of the largest batteries in the world (build in 1979 - 2 000 000 tons of pumped water, 440m height difference, typical working duration is 4 hours and 5.5 hours for pumping water back)

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Dlouhe_strane_horni_nadrz... and another one

General concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

If it would be actually climate emergency then we would be building in mountains all where reasonable. No matter the damage to some rare species, panorama and tourism.

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

#906

Post by eloff » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

matkoniecz wrote: post #895

slashdev wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this makes so much sense. But when you look at the costs involved it's far cheaper and less risky to deploy 2x in renewables and a bunch of energy storage plus some gas plants and long distance transmission. New innovations in nuclear maybe have a chance to change this, but renewables are still getting cheaper so even if they succeed they must still beat the moving target. In another world where we had embraced…

> deploy 2x in renewables and a bunch of energy storage plus some gas plants and long distance transmission Is it actually sufficient? Feel free to link even technical sources (as long as it is not paywalled without way of checking quality). My impression is that right now "bunch of energy storage" is 100% unfeasible to provide power from renewables without blackouts. And existing ones work thanks to nearby countries…

I'll turn that around and ask specifically why that's not possible.

It would require a better interconnected grid, overbuilt renewables, and plenty of storage with some level of on demand generation like gas. A good percentage of baseload power like hydro and nuclear certainly help, but it's not required.

It's just a matter of how much are you willing to spend as opposed to something that's physically impossible.

I believe renewables + grid scale batteries are already cheaper than new nuclear and much lower risk and much faster to deploy. The momentum is in favor of widening that gap.

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

#907

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

kumarvvr wrote: post #488

bko wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia. China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emiss…

> The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia Developed nations have polluted the planet for decades, with highest rates of energy consumption per capita. They have failed to build systems and processess that enables sustainable living. They have lived their excess and now lecture the world that their "90% of emissions are from consumption" One g…

Lived in excess (mostly) in ignorance.

Now that we know, it is better to help the next generation live better without giving a pass because “that’s not fair, you got to do it” which is more akin to children’s logic.

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

#908

Post by outworlder » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:30 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…

> If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power

In theory. I used to say the same thing until recently. Now, I'm not sure.

Let's say we decide that yes, nuclear is the way to go, as it provides a lot of energy with barely any pollution (other than mining and construction). The 'waste', while a problem, is inconsequential compared to spewing crap in the atmosphere.

Let's also assume that the designs will not cause proliferation concerns (we have such designs, as well as more plentiful fuels). In fact, let's assume we will use the best designs we have in general.

Even then, what's the turnaround time to construct new power plants? The figures I've seen suggest it takes almost a decade until a plant is operational. Do we still have the time do build them in enough numbers to make a difference?

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

#909

Post by GVIrish » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #871

h1fra wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree Nuclear is the most probable solution it's not easy to build and fuel is very sparse. France who is leading the way is 100% depend on other countries, I'm not sure it will play well in the coming years > 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia. And the second issue is to focus on electricity production, while there is a ton a other things cr…

Greatly reducing meat production, particularly beef and other ruminants, will have a smaller effect than many people expect. Even if we don't eat them, vast numbers of ruminants will still need to exist because they are a critical part of natural ecosystems. Humans made space for their preferred ruminants, like beef, by displacing vast populations of other ruminants which have similar climate impact. I don't think mo…

> Humans made space for their preferred ruminants, like beef, by displacing vast populations of other ruminants which have similar climate impact. I don't think most people fully appreciate just how large the natural population was before we started raising beef at scale. Even if we eliminated the beef herds, other ruminant species would immediately start filling the vacuum.

The problem with beef farming is that vast amounts of forest are burned or clear cut to allow cattle to graze. That alone raises the carbon footprint of beef. Grass on the pasture definitely doesn't sequester much carbon.

When we talk about wild ruminants, some regions that are used for cattle didn't have a bunch of ungulates on it before. South America for example didn't have huge herds of llamas roaming the lands.

In North America Bison herds were estimated to number about 10 million, but right now there's somewhere around 90 million cattle in the US. Even if cattle farming was drastically reduced, it's unlikely Bison numbers would return to their historic amount. Deer are the other part of the picture, and their numbers would sky rocket, given the opportunity. But that's where managing their numbers and reintroducing predators comes in.

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

#910

Post by outworlder » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

phs318u wrote: post #897

jjoonathan wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is able to compete on merit and has been forever, but we chose to create a legal environment in which one or two dedicated NIMBYs could stall a project indefinitely. That's the entire reason why "the economics aren't there." We aren't talking about costs of building a reactor or risk of it melting down, we're talking about the cost and risk of 1001 strategically sequential ground squirrel environmental impact…

> Nuclear is able to compete on merit If that were the case, then this would not be required: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821

Only because any accidents, while rare, are incredibly high profile.

Where's the compensation for all the deaths due to coal plants? Unlike nuclear, they spew carcinogenic crap in the atmosphere by design. And some radioactivity too.