4 ms·

I'm ok with taking a hit if it means more wildlife.

ryanmercer 8y ago
I'm ok with going early 1900's if it means we can get down to 1-2 gigatons of carbon a year instead of nearly 40 this year, and probably more than 40 next year, so we can buy some more time until we can start sequestering excess carbon we've put into the environment before stuff starts getting really bad. We are generating 4x the electricity we were in just the early 1970s, that sort of increase isn't sustainable and we're already seeing consequences of our actions. Unless a fleet of alien ships show up in orbit and charitably give us a bunch of fusion reactors... we've got to start making some pretty radical changes in our lives.
- adam-a 8y ago
  In the UK for example the electricty usage has gone up from 192 TWh to 300 TWh, which is not great but not 4x either. The increase is mostly down to the developing nations around the world. So we'd have to go back the 1950s to see a 4x reduction (73 TWh in 1956). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-electricity-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historic...
  - kungtotte 8y ago
    Yet if you look at the data, western countries are responsible for way more carbon per capita than the rest of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File%3ACO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  I'm not ok with going early 1900s. Most people aren't. I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". So I'm not going to consider myself part of the problem.
  - ryanmercer 8y ago
    >I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". Uhhhh, I never said no to nuclear. I said at best it's a bandaid. We have a few decades to make some very considerable changes, maybe two centuries to find alternative means of energy (fusion, mining asteroids for PV and battery materials etc as there's a very finite amount of the materials needed for manufacturing batteries and panels on earth too). People like to say nuclear is our savior but, at current energy production levels, with a moderate estimate for continued growth, there's maybe 100 years of fuel there. Nuclear just isn't a solution for the world's energy needs, it however is a GREAT solution for generating considerable amounts of power in small spaces (ice breakers, submarines) and for portable power for emergencies like with the Russian floating nuclear power stations (Google the Akademik Lomonosov).
    - _Tev 8y ago
      > there's maybe 100 years of fuel there At least you have not made the mistake of inclusion "waste" as a problem in the same post. Breeder reactors solve this. Yes, fuel will be significantly more expensive because of them. But all these "issues" with nuclear (except capital intensivity, that will likely stay) will go away.
beaconstudios 8y ago
it's not the average HN user that would be meaningfully impacted by such changes.

I'm ok with going early 1900's if it means we can get down to 1-2 gigatons of carbon a year instead of nearly 40 this year, and probably more than 40 next year, so we can buy some more time until we can start sequestering excess carbon we've put into the environment before stuff starts getting really bad. We are generating 4x the electricity we were in just the early 1970s, that sort of increase isn't sustainable and we're already seeing consequences of our actions. Unless a fleet of alien ships show up in orbit and charitably give us a bunch of fusion reactors... we've got to start making some pretty radical changes in our lives.

adam-a 8y ago
In the UK for example the electricty usage has gone up from 192 TWh to 300 TWh, which is not great but not 4x either. The increase is mostly down to the developing nations around the world. So we'd have to go back the 1950s to see a 4x reduction (73 TWh in 1956). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-electricity-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historic...
- kungtotte 8y ago
  Yet if you look at the data, western countries are responsible for way more carbon per capita than the rest of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File%3ACO2_per_capita_per_country.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
nsxwolf 8y ago
I'm not ok with going early 1900s. Most people aren't. I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". So I'm not going to consider myself part of the problem.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". Uhhhh, I never said no to nuclear. I said at best it's a bandaid. We have a few decades to make some very considerable changes, maybe two centuries to find alternative means of energy (fusion, mining asteroids for PV and battery materials etc as there's a very finite amount of the materials needed for manufacturing batteries and panels on earth too). People like to say nuclear is our savior but, at current energy production levels, with a moderate estimate for continued growth, there's maybe 100 years of fuel there. Nuclear just isn't a solution for the world's energy needs, it however is a GREAT solution for generating considerable amounts of power in small spaces (ice breakers, submarines) and for portable power for emergencies like with the Russian floating nuclear power stations (Google the Akademik Lomonosov).
  - _Tev 8y ago
    > there's maybe 100 years of fuel there At least you have not made the mistake of inclusion "waste" as a problem in the same post. Breeder reactors solve this. Yes, fuel will be significantly more expensive because of them. But all these "issues" with nuclear (except capital intensivity, that will likely stay) will go away.

beaconstudios 8y ago

it's not the average HN user that would be meaningfully impacted by such changes.