3 ms·

>we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short t

>we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time, That's not how public opinion, politics or economics works and if you're posting on HN you're educated enough to know better. First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? Is that going to be through a UN agreement or are you going to convince developing nations like China and India that they shouldn't use fossil fuels to catch up even though the rest of the world got to do so during the industrial revolution? Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? Are we going door-to-door letting consumers know that they're dum-dum children and we know best, or do we just use some executive orders and imminent domain to force it down their throat? Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands all the world over considering it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant? Renewables? Ok, so how are you going to generate sufficient electricity from renewable sources in dark, windless places WITHOUT using fossil fuels? Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? Because last time I checked you need quite a few plastics and petrochemicals to manufacture the electronics. Not to mention the massive amount of concrete needed in the construction of wind turbines and other facilities, which of course absorbs oxygen like a sponge.

belorn 7y ago
> First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? A good start would be EU. Progressive changes would look like a resolution to reduce the use of coal in power production (already exist to some degree), and then continue by putting goals like max 30% of energy production from fossil fuels by year 2030, then 20% by 2040, and a goal for full stop at hopefully the end up this century. The general problem however is that the we might not have enough time to slowly phase out polluting power production in time to reach the Paris Agreement. If we ask why china or India would agree, the same question could be asked why they signed the Paris agreement. > Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? If the chose is between raising sea levels, expanding deserts, melted ice caps, mass extinction and other rather nasty scenario from global warming, or just putting a bunch of spent nuclear material in a miles long deep hole under a mountain, the choice seems pretty simple from a public relation perspective. Nuclear waste that is currently pilling up is bad but putting more pollution in the atmosphere is looking right now as being worse. The choice is choosing which of the two problems we prefer to have. > Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands Parent comment said they wanted to use storage and renewable, as in their view that is the cheapest way to solve the issue. Alternative we could start building those nuclear power plants and hope they can be built faster than the global warming crisis will unfold. The third alternative seems to keep burning fossil fuels while telling our self that it is fine as long we also use some renewable once in a while. > Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? I think you are interpreting my statement a bit too literal. No change happens overnight. The goal of net zero emissions is right now an impossibility. A lot of climate research however says that we need to get there yesterday. How we combine the reality of pollution with the practical reality of maintaining supply in the energy grid is currently unsolved.
- newswriter99 7y ago
  "By year 2030" So much for "ban all burning of fossil fuels today"
  - belorn 7y ago
    Since the only way to reach net zero emissions yesterday is by breaking the laws of physics and inventing a time machine, any solution is going to fail in reaching that goal. So yes. It would be good if we banned all burning of fossil fuels today. I would even say it is second best to reaching it yesterday. Third best is tomorrow, but because of practical reasons 2030 might be the best we can achieve. The first step however is to find agreement that net zero emissions is the goal, and in order to reach there we can't continue to burn natural gas and tell us that because of economical reasons gas is superior to nuclear.

belorn 7y ago

> First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? A good start would be EU. Progressive changes would look like a resolution to reduce the use of coal in power production (already exist to some degree), and then continue by putting goals like max 30% of energy production from fossil fuels by year 2030, then 20% by 2040, and a goal for full stop at hopefully the end up this century. The general problem however is that the we might not have enough time to slowly phase out polluting power production in time to reach the Paris Agreement. If we ask why china or India would agree, the same question could be asked why they signed the Paris agreement. > Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? If the chose is between raising sea levels, expanding deserts, melted ice caps, mass extinction and other rather nasty scenario from global warming, or just putting a bunch of spent nuclear material in a miles long deep hole under a mountain, the choice seems pretty simple from a public relation perspective. Nuclear waste that is currently pilling up is bad but putting more pollution in the atmosphere is looking right now as being worse. The choice is choosing which of the two problems we prefer to have. > Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands Parent comment said they wanted to use storage and renewable, as in their view that is the cheapest way to solve the issue. Alternative we could start building those nuclear power plants and hope they can be built faster than the global warming crisis will unfold. The third alternative seems to keep burning fossil fuels while telling our self that it is fine as long we also use some renewable once in a while. > Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? I think you are interpreting my statement a bit too literal. No change happens overnight. The goal of net zero emissions is right now an impossibility. A lot of climate research however says that we need to get there yesterday. How we combine the reality of pollution with the practical reality of maintaining supply in the energy grid is currently unsolved.

newswriter99 7y ago
"By year 2030" So much for "ban all burning of fossil fuels today"
- belorn 7y ago
  Since the only way to reach net zero emissions yesterday is by breaking the laws of physics and inventing a time machine, any solution is going to fail in reaching that goal. So yes. It would be good if we banned all burning of fossil fuels today. I would even say it is second best to reaching it yesterday. Third best is tomorrow, but because of practical reasons 2030 might be the best we can achieve. The first step however is to find agreement that net zero emissions is the goal, and in order to reach there we can't continue to burn natural gas and tell us that because of economical reasons gas is superior to nuclear.