6 ms·

“ This was due to a decrease in coal plants, which resulted in an emissions drop of 190 million metric tons” Yep, coal is one of the biggest problems. https:/

“ This was due to a decrease in coal plants, which resulted in an emissions drop of 190 million metric tons” Yep, coal is one of the biggest problems. https://h4labs.org/ive-got-another-stupid-idea-to-deal-with-climate-change/ https://h4labs.org/ive-got-another-stupid-idea-to-deal-with-...

stazz1 7y ago
Trading breathing air for one-time-use energy is absurd
- ksdale 7y ago
  I agree that it doesn't make sense at all for the US to trade breathing air for one time energy use, but in the abstract, trading breathing air for cheap energy in order to lift people out of poverty is far from absurd, it's an actual, difficult trade off that should be thought about carefully. A lot of people still live in homes constantly filled with wood smoke, for whom an electric coal-powered cooking stove would drastically improve their air quality. Naturally coal is still terrible for the environment, but ours is a position of great privilege, to have clean air feel so much more important than the source of our energy.
  - ip26 7y ago
    To your point, even a coal-burning cooking stove is better than a wood-burning cooking stove. To wit, some months of the year the very worst air quality in the world is in Coyhaique, Chile due to their geography & use of green wood for heating & cooking. https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/ https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    We can't ignore the opportunity costs. Every cent of money and effort we put towards digging fossil fuels out of the ground is money and effort we don't spend towards developing new and better sources of renewable energy. Even if the opportunity for short-term revenue is better for the former, the latter is going to secure cheap, sustainable, long-term energy independence for all of us. If we want to lift people out of energy poverty, we want to do so permanently, not in a way that leaves them back in poverty again after all our sources run out.
    - ksdale 7y ago
      This is a great point, but I think it cuts both ways. If a place doesn't get electrified until it can be done so with renewables, then there are people who e.g. are dying from the pollution from their wood cook fires in the meantime. I think I've also read though that being able to deploy solar and wind on a smaller scale makes for faster electrification in some place where it would be harder to build out a giant power plant and grid, so maybe you're right in any case.
      - aalleavitch 7y ago
        I'm a huge proponent of trying to build solar microgrids in as many places as possible; a system where every small municipality has its own local solar microgrid with battery storage, each self-sufficient but patched into a much larger grid that can help balance load and smooth over local failures in eachother's microgrids would be a way to allow the highest level of energy independence possible and avoids the pitfalls of centralization while still getting the benefits of a large-scale grid. It could be an incredibly resilient and sustainable system if well implemented. The only barrier to it as it stands is the cost to install all these solar panels and batteries.
  - jes5199 7y ago
    in many parts of the world, we've already crossed a tipping point where solar and wind are cheaper than coal. We should be doing everything in our power to make that true for developing nations as well
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Trading clean water for one-time-use energy is also absurd (fracking)
  - username90 7y ago
    Clean water is a renewable resource so I don't see the absurdity.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      So is breathable air tbh. If it wasn’t, we would have breathed it all up by now.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  Not really that absurd if that one-time-use energy is needed for essentials, such as heating in winter when there are no viable alternatives. But yes, I agree with your general point.
VBprogrammer 7y ago
Coal is abundant and cheap and well suited to day and night base load power. The emissions are awful but there is no suitable replacement right now which fits those criteria (nuclear falls down on the cheap point). Sure, we can keep burning natural gas like it's going out of style but at some point demand is going to push up supply again. Until grid level storage is well proven (and not geographically constrained like pumped hydro) that is the reality.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  From what I've read, even considering the setup and decommissioning costs of nuclear power, it's still cheaper long term than coal power. Is this incorrect?
  - beat 7y ago
    Yes, it's incorrect. The long-term cost of nuclear is about the same as coal. That's why we're seeing nuclear plants closing years ahead of schedule, just like coal. Gas, onshore wind, and the latest solar all cost about half as much. This comment will undoubtedly trigger rebuttals about fusion, thorium, and other technologies that do not actually exist at production scale and will not exist for at least another decade. Solar and wind (and for better or worse, fracked gas) are here NOW.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      This is not true at all. Plants are closing because of onerous NIMBY regulation. They can be made cheap if they are built at scale, see South Korea for an example of cheap plant production. Indeed, SK produces nuclear so cheap that they are exporting plants to other countries.
      - beat 7y ago
        Do you have any evidence for this? Can you point to any nuclear plant in the US (or anywhere else) that closed prematurely due to new regulations? I bet you can't. As for South Korea... I'll just quote Wikipedia here. "In 2012 South Korea had plans for significant expansion of its nuclear power industry, and to increase nuclear's share of generation to 60% by 2035.[2] Eleven more reactors were scheduled to come online in the period 2012 to 2021, adding 13.8 GWe in total.[3] However, in 2013 the government submitted a reduced draft plan to parliament for nuclear output of up to 29% of generation capacity by 2035, following several scandals related to falsification of safety documentation.[1] This new plan still involved increasing 2035 nuclear capacity by 7 GWe, to 43 GWe.[4] Responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power. The three reactors currently under construction will be completed, but the government has decided these will be the last built, and as the existing plants close at a 40 years end-of-life they will be replaced with other modes of generation."

stazz1 7y ago

Trading breathing air for one-time-use energy is absurd

ksdale 7y ago
I agree that it doesn't make sense at all for the US to trade breathing air for one time energy use, but in the abstract, trading breathing air for cheap energy in order to lift people out of poverty is far from absurd, it's an actual, difficult trade off that should be thought about carefully. A lot of people still live in homes constantly filled with wood smoke, for whom an electric coal-powered cooking stove would drastically improve their air quality. Naturally coal is still terrible for the environment, but ours is a position of great privilege, to have clean air feel so much more important than the source of our energy.
- ip26 7y ago
  To your point, even a coal-burning cooking stove is better than a wood-burning cooking stove. To wit, some months of the year the very worst air quality in the world is in Coyhaique, Chile due to their geography & use of green wood for heating & cooking. https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/ https://undark.org/2018/12/05/air-pollution-chile/
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  We can't ignore the opportunity costs. Every cent of money and effort we put towards digging fossil fuels out of the ground is money and effort we don't spend towards developing new and better sources of renewable energy. Even if the opportunity for short-term revenue is better for the former, the latter is going to secure cheap, sustainable, long-term energy independence for all of us. If we want to lift people out of energy poverty, we want to do so permanently, not in a way that leaves them back in poverty again after all our sources run out.
  - ksdale 7y ago
    This is a great point, but I think it cuts both ways. If a place doesn't get electrified until it can be done so with renewables, then there are people who e.g. are dying from the pollution from their wood cook fires in the meantime. I think I've also read though that being able to deploy solar and wind on a smaller scale makes for faster electrification in some place where it would be harder to build out a giant power plant and grid, so maybe you're right in any case.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      I'm a huge proponent of trying to build solar microgrids in as many places as possible; a system where every small municipality has its own local solar microgrid with battery storage, each self-sufficient but patched into a much larger grid that can help balance load and smooth over local failures in eachother's microgrids would be a way to allow the highest level of energy independence possible and avoids the pitfalls of centralization while still getting the benefits of a large-scale grid. It could be an incredibly resilient and sustainable system if well implemented. The only barrier to it as it stands is the cost to install all these solar panels and batteries.
- jes5199 7y ago
  in many parts of the world, we've already crossed a tipping point where solar and wind are cheaper than coal. We should be doing everything in our power to make that true for developing nations as well
hanniabu 7y ago
Trading clean water for one-time-use energy is also absurd (fracking)
- username90 7y ago
  Clean water is a renewable resource so I don't see the absurdity.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    So is breathable air tbh. If it wasn’t, we would have breathed it all up by now.
enraged_camel 7y ago
Not really that absurd if that one-time-use energy is needed for essentials, such as heating in winter when there are no viable alternatives. But yes, I agree with your general point.

VBprogrammer 7y ago

Coal is abundant and cheap and well suited to day and night base load power. The emissions are awful but there is no suitable replacement right now which fits those criteria (nuclear falls down on the cheap point). Sure, we can keep burning natural gas like it's going out of style but at some point demand is going to push up supply again. Until grid level storage is well proven (and not geographically constrained like pumped hydro) that is the reality.

AQuantized 7y ago
From what I've read, even considering the setup and decommissioning costs of nuclear power, it's still cheaper long term than coal power. Is this incorrect?
- beat 7y ago
  Yes, it's incorrect. The long-term cost of nuclear is about the same as coal. That's why we're seeing nuclear plants closing years ahead of schedule, just like coal. Gas, onshore wind, and the latest solar all cost about half as much. This comment will undoubtedly trigger rebuttals about fusion, thorium, and other technologies that do not actually exist at production scale and will not exist for at least another decade. Solar and wind (and for better or worse, fracked gas) are here NOW.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    This is not true at all. Plants are closing because of onerous NIMBY regulation. They can be made cheap if they are built at scale, see South Korea for an example of cheap plant production. Indeed, SK produces nuclear so cheap that they are exporting plants to other countries.
    - beat 7y ago
      Do you have any evidence for this? Can you point to any nuclear plant in the US (or anywhere else) that closed prematurely due to new regulations? I bet you can't. As for South Korea... I'll just quote Wikipedia here. "In 2012 South Korea had plans for significant expansion of its nuclear power industry, and to increase nuclear's share of generation to 60% by 2035.[2] Eleven more reactors were scheduled to come online in the period 2012 to 2021, adding 13.8 GWe in total.[3] However, in 2013 the government submitted a reduced draft plan to parliament for nuclear output of up to 29% of generation capacity by 2035, following several scandals related to falsification of safety documentation.[1] This new plan still involved increasing 2035 nuclear capacity by 7 GWe, to 43 GWe.[4] Responding to widespread public concerns after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the high earthquake risk in South Korea, and the nuclear scandals, the new government of President Moon Jae-in elected in 2017 decided to gradually phase out nuclear power. The three reactors currently under construction will be completed, but the government has decided these will be the last built, and as the existing plants close at a 40 years end-of-life they will be replaced with other modes of generation."