4 ms·

I don’t mean to pick on you, but this question comes up in every single climate change post. Answering it is exhausting. We need a climate change FAQ. The simp

I don’t mean to pick on you, but this question comes up in every single climate change post. Answering it is exhausting. We need a climate change FAQ. The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Vote, eat less meat, bike ride, strike, protest, invest in solar, boycott, reuse, buy less, telecommute, etc. Use your imagination. Do something, do everything, the end goal is we all stop releasing sequestered green house gasses into the atmosphere.

rewgs 7y ago
> eat less meat While eating less or no meat is a big part of it, it's more nuanced than it's often presented. For instance, this talk provides a very, very good argument for keeping livestock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Not disagreeing with you, only replying to you for visibility/to add on to what you said.
pdonis 7y ago
> The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Build nuclear power plants. All the other things are fine, but if you really want to end fossil fuels, you need a non-fossil-fuel source of reliable base load power. Nuclear is the only one we have. Other sources are fine, but they can't produce reliable base load power. And, btw, I think we should end fossil fuels even if it turns out not to make much of a difference to climate change (which might well be the case since all of the models that have a high sensitivity to CO2 built in have been over-predicting warming for several decades now).
- daenz 7y ago
  >Build nuclear power plants. And to all the people who say "they take too long there isn't enough time": the best time to start nuclear power plant construction was 10 years ago, the second best time is now.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Except by the time the plant is done being built (10 years late and 10x over budget) renewables will have surpassed it in terms of cost for deployed GW, and grid-scale and consumer batteries will be at the point where we can store and demand shift enough power to use all the renewables we can bring online. Renewables has already surpassed nuclear in the US. I think the new reality is the best time to build a nuke plant is never.
    - bch 7y ago
      > renewables will have surpassed it in terms of cost Are you thinking in terms of dollars or including the price of future use/materials? In other words, can’t a nuclear plant effectively be swapped in for a (e.g.) coal-fired generator and Just Work, versus all the materials (grid-scale collectors, batteries, etc), which is just the next generation of junk in a treadmill that’s still a carbon problem? I ask because I don’t know.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        Look at the other article on the front page about air pollution. We’ve actually made tremendous progress reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal in the last decade. To damages from air quality problems in the US are down 20% overall, which is a economic savings of $1.6 trillion per decade. The waste stream from solar is a real question. The video posted in the other reply brings it up as well. We definitely need panels that are designed for extremely long service and recyclable end of life. I do think the battery tech is evolving extremely rapidly and dovetails with EVs so that will help keep renewables competitive even as total overall renewable supply share increases. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200082
    - daenz 7y ago
      Go into this with an open mind, but it shows a number of ways that nuclear is superior to renewables, coming from someone who was staunchly against nuclear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Hydropower can work for base load, but it has its own issues.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  So... backed by about 24 to 48 hours of storage, and overbuilt by a factor of 2 to 3 (so you curtail most of your energy), wind and solar can produce reliable, baseload power. Particularly if you connect geographically separated regions and use wind/solar (and possibly geo/hydro) together. The cost is about the same as nuclear. We should do everything, though, including nuclear. i'm a big nuclear fan. All at once, right now.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    If the cost is the same as nuclear, it should be preferred, as there is no nuclear waste. And that's probably even also considering that both the actual cost of nuclear[0][1][2][3], as well as the risk of failure[4][5] and the therein resulting costs[6] are often wildly underestimated. [0]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm [1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cost-nuclear-myth/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cos... [2]: https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-decommissioning-cost-underestimated https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-de... [3]: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nuclear-power-1.3415825 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nucl... [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scientists-warn-nuclear-regulators-underestimate-risk.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scie... [5]: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-potential-disaster.html https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-... [6]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      I'm including the wildly inflated costs, here. And it only works at lower latitudes. At high latitudes, it's not viable.
- JaRail 7y ago
  And engineer some safe small-scale reactors for container/cruise ships. It's a crime we aren't hedging our bets on renewables with some next-gen prototype reactors.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    Generally, I do find that a good idea, but I seriously doubt the people operating those ships are to be trusted in the proper handling of nuclear equipment. Make operation of diesel cleaner and thus more expensive so that sails and PV would be considered and used as well.
xwdv 7y ago
All of that is pointless, it will not work, and anything that requires human behavior to change en mass without direct incentives is wildly unrealistic. Imagine doing all that, only to die, all the same. We cannot accept simple answers, we need complicated engineered answers. Increasingly, I find the best thing to do is get your affairs in order, do not birth a child, and try to enjoy what is left of this life before it’s all over and the world cooks to death. If life must have no purpose, then you might as well choose to be happy. And I mean it. BE happy, before it’s too late.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Or live a carbon-negative life and teach your kids to be carbon-negative as well.
rosege 7y ago
While you are correct there is just no way that this is going to happen. Even if you could convince all the West to give up FF then I don't think you could convince China and India. Also there is no way you could convince the majority of people in the West to give up FF because a large percentage still don't believe climate change is man made. I was having a discussion a couple of nights ago with someone who thought it was all a conspiracy and when I said well NASA says the number of climate scientists behind it is 94% they still prefer to believe the right wing radio. I really can't see this being turned around unless a major technical breakthrough is discovered which I consider fairly unlikely. At this stage no one knows exactly how bad it will get. I've got between 30 & 40 years left (and no kids) so I don't think it will be catastrophic in my lifetime but I still have basic plans in my head about becoming more self-sufficient in the future as one way to deal with a potential fallout should there be some kind of calamity in the future.
- sriku 7y ago
  Consider these - http://www.walkthroughindia.com/walkthroughs/top-15-biggest-solar-power-projects-in-india/ http://www.walkthroughindia.com/walkthroughs/top-15-biggest-... https://www.news18.com/news/auto/bjp-led-nda-government-mulling-to-sell-only-electric-2w-3w-in-india-2023-onwards-2171395.html https://www.news18.com/news/auto/bjp-led-nda-government-mull... On the wikipedia "list of photovoltaic power stations", China and India turn up on top when sorted by plant capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta...
  - rosege 7y ago
    yes I have heard of some of those but I've also heard of Adani wanting to build coal plants too - a quick search showed this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-australia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-... So yes it would be great if they can make progress but I will hold judgement for some time.
api 7y ago
I call these kinds of suggestions abstinence based environmental policy and it will work about as well as shaming teens into not having sex. Abstinence based sex ed results in more STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. We've been preaching abstinence based environmentalism since the 70s. Load up the atmospheric CO2 graph and look at the plastic in the ocean and see that the result is basically the same. People pretend to go along, do showy things like wear promise rings or ban plastic straws, and keep fucking and driving and running their air conditioners. People won't go for being shamed into reduced wealth, especially when the shaming is coming from comparatively rich people. Try to force it on them and you will get a populist revolt. So by all means keep preaching 70s style lifestyle shaming environmentalism if you want another 50 years that looks identical to the last 50 years. People will listen, nod, and ignore, just like they do with sexual moralism. The answer is to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, nuclear, etc. and to electrify transport and industry. Replace as in generate the same or even more energy. As I say this I live in a place where as much as 50% of my power is solar on some days and I drive an EV. We are close to cracking the storage problem with better batteries and scaling production of them. This is very possible. Sort of like how you cut STDs and unwanted pregnancies by making contraception available and guys putting rubber things on their willies. It's what works. Only ideologues oppose it.
- abootstrapper 7y ago
  > The answer is to replace fossil fuels with [renewables] I agree. > So poverty. Don’t be so dramatic. Would it kill you to turn the thermostat up while we convert our global power infrastructure to renewables? My list of example actions one could do to to fight climate change was not exhaustive or exclusive.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Passive solar design can improve comfort levels wile dramatically lowering energy use. No real sacrifice involved -- other than giving up our entrenched mental models that dictate we can either be good or we can have satisfaction, but not both.
  - api 7y ago

rewgs 7y ago

> eat less meat While eating less or no meat is a big part of it, it's more nuanced than it's often presented. For instance, this talk provides a very, very good argument for keeping livestock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Not disagreeing with you, only replying to you for visibility/to add on to what you said.

pdonis 7y ago

> The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Build nuclear power plants. All the other things are fine, but if you really want to end fossil fuels, you need a non-fossil-fuel source of reliable base load power. Nuclear is the only one we have. Other sources are fine, but they can't produce reliable base load power. And, btw, I think we should end fossil fuels even if it turns out not to make much of a difference to climate change (which might well be the case since all of the models that have a high sensitivity to CO2 built in have been over-predicting warming for several decades now).

daenz 7y ago
>Build nuclear power plants. And to all the people who say "they take too long there isn't enough time": the best time to start nuclear power plant construction was 10 years ago, the second best time is now.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Except by the time the plant is done being built (10 years late and 10x over budget) renewables will have surpassed it in terms of cost for deployed GW, and grid-scale and consumer batteries will be at the point where we can store and demand shift enough power to use all the renewables we can bring online. Renewables has already surpassed nuclear in the US. I think the new reality is the best time to build a nuke plant is never.
  - bch 7y ago
    > renewables will have surpassed it in terms of cost Are you thinking in terms of dollars or including the price of future use/materials? In other words, can’t a nuclear plant effectively be swapped in for a (e.g.) coal-fired generator and Just Work, versus all the materials (grid-scale collectors, batteries, etc), which is just the next generation of junk in a treadmill that’s still a carbon problem? I ask because I don’t know.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Look at the other article on the front page about air pollution. We’ve actually made tremendous progress reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal in the last decade. To damages from air quality problems in the US are down 20% overall, which is a economic savings of $1.6 trillion per decade. The waste stream from solar is a real question. The video posted in the other reply brings it up as well. We definitely need panels that are designed for extremely long service and recyclable end of life. I do think the battery tech is evolving extremely rapidly and dovetails with EVs so that will help keep renewables competitive even as total overall renewable supply share increases. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200082
  - daenz 7y ago
    Go into this with an open mind, but it shows a number of ways that nuclear is superior to renewables, coming from someone who was staunchly against nuclear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
saagarjha 7y ago
Hydropower can work for base load, but it has its own issues.
Robotbeat 7y ago
So... backed by about 24 to 48 hours of storage, and overbuilt by a factor of 2 to 3 (so you curtail most of your energy), wind and solar can produce reliable, baseload power. Particularly if you connect geographically separated regions and use wind/solar (and possibly geo/hydro) together. The cost is about the same as nuclear. We should do everything, though, including nuclear. i'm a big nuclear fan. All at once, right now.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  If the cost is the same as nuclear, it should be preferred, as there is no nuclear waste. And that's probably even also considering that both the actual cost of nuclear[0][1][2][3], as well as the risk of failure[4][5] and the therein resulting costs[6] are often wildly underestimated. [0]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm [1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cost-nuclear-myth/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cos... [2]: https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-decommissioning-cost-underestimated https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-de... [3]: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nuclear-power-1.3415825 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nucl... [4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scientists-warn-nuclear-regulators-underestimate-risk.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scie... [5]: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-potential-disaster.html https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-... [6]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    I'm including the wildly inflated costs, here. And it only works at lower latitudes. At high latitudes, it's not viable.
JaRail 7y ago
And engineer some safe small-scale reactors for container/cruise ships. It's a crime we aren't hedging our bets on renewables with some next-gen prototype reactors.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  Generally, I do find that a good idea, but I seriously doubt the people operating those ships are to be trusted in the proper handling of nuclear equipment. Make operation of diesel cleaner and thus more expensive so that sails and PV would be considered and used as well.

xwdv 7y ago

All of that is pointless, it will not work, and anything that requires human behavior to change en mass without direct incentives is wildly unrealistic. Imagine doing all that, only to die, all the same. We cannot accept simple answers, we need complicated engineered answers. Increasingly, I find the best thing to do is get your affairs in order, do not birth a child, and try to enjoy what is left of this life before it’s all over and the world cooks to death. If life must have no purpose, then you might as well choose to be happy. And I mean it. BE happy, before it’s too late.

Robotbeat 7y ago
Or live a carbon-negative life and teach your kids to be carbon-negative as well.

rosege 7y ago

While you are correct there is just no way that this is going to happen. Even if you could convince all the West to give up FF then I don't think you could convince China and India. Also there is no way you could convince the majority of people in the West to give up FF because a large percentage still don't believe climate change is man made. I was having a discussion a couple of nights ago with someone who thought it was all a conspiracy and when I said well NASA says the number of climate scientists behind it is 94% they still prefer to believe the right wing radio. I really can't see this being turned around unless a major technical breakthrough is discovered which I consider fairly unlikely. At this stage no one knows exactly how bad it will get. I've got between 30 & 40 years left (and no kids) so I don't think it will be catastrophic in my lifetime but I still have basic plans in my head about becoming more self-sufficient in the future as one way to deal with a potential fallout should there be some kind of calamity in the future.

sriku 7y ago
Consider these - http://www.walkthroughindia.com/walkthroughs/top-15-biggest-solar-power-projects-in-india/ http://www.walkthroughindia.com/walkthroughs/top-15-biggest-... https://www.news18.com/news/auto/bjp-led-nda-government-mulling-to-sell-only-electric-2w-3w-in-india-2023-onwards-2171395.html https://www.news18.com/news/auto/bjp-led-nda-government-mull... On the wikipedia "list of photovoltaic power stations", China and India turn up on top when sorted by plant capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta...
- rosege 7y ago
  yes I have heard of some of those but I've also heard of Adani wanting to build coal plants too - a quick search showed this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-australia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-... So yes it would be great if they can make progress but I will hold judgement for some time.

api 7y ago

I call these kinds of suggestions abstinence based environmental policy and it will work about as well as shaming teens into not having sex. Abstinence based sex ed results in more STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. We've been preaching abstinence based environmentalism since the 70s. Load up the atmospheric CO2 graph and look at the plastic in the ocean and see that the result is basically the same. People pretend to go along, do showy things like wear promise rings or ban plastic straws, and keep fucking and driving and running their air conditioners. People won't go for being shamed into reduced wealth, especially when the shaming is coming from comparatively rich people. Try to force it on them and you will get a populist revolt. So by all means keep preaching 70s style lifestyle shaming environmentalism if you want another 50 years that looks identical to the last 50 years. People will listen, nod, and ignore, just like they do with sexual moralism. The answer is to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, nuclear, etc. and to electrify transport and industry. Replace as in generate the same or even more energy. As I say this I live in a place where as much as 50% of my power is solar on some days and I drive an EV. We are close to cracking the storage problem with better batteries and scaling production of them. This is very possible. Sort of like how you cut STDs and unwanted pregnancies by making contraception available and guys putting rubber things on their willies. It's what works. Only ideologues oppose it.

abootstrapper 7y ago
> The answer is to replace fossil fuels with [renewables] I agree. > So poverty. Don’t be so dramatic. Would it kill you to turn the thermostat up while we convert our global power infrastructure to renewables? My list of example actions one could do to to fight climate change was not exhaustive or exclusive.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Passive solar design can improve comfort levels wile dramatically lowering energy use. No real sacrifice involved -- other than giving up our entrenched mental models that dictate we can either be good or we can have satisfaction, but not both.
- api 7y ago