5 ms·

So, we're burning fossil fuels, increasing CO2 output, don't have an idea which will reliably improve the situation and are getting stupider by the day, decreas

So, we're burning fossil fuels, increasing CO2 output, don't have an idea which will reliably improve the situation and are getting stupider by the day, decreasing our chance to ever getting one. Yay...

adrianN 6y ago
We in fact have multiple ideas how to improve the situation. The problem is not a lack of ideas, or deployable technology, the problem is a lack of political will to implement the necessary measures.
cbmuser 6y ago
We do. It’s called nuclear power and it‘s fought by those who claim they are fighting for the environment. > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
- hhjinks 6y ago
  Honest and good faith question here: assuming all electricity on the grid was nuclear, how much CO2 emission would remain? You can't just swap massive cargo ships to nuclear overnight. Would "just" making the power grid green be enough?
  - whatisthiseven 6y ago
    No, power generation is about a quarter: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Transportation could push that total to 50% if all ICE cars were converted or destroyed and only electric vehicles were used (ignoring ships and trains). "Industry" includes CO2 waste byproducts which are much harder to reduce as many processes may struggle to eliminate that byproduct. Instead capture and sequestration would be needed. This is another 25% The rest are small, but since we need virtually all CO2 emissions to be zero, we are left with nearly another 25% that isn't tied to electric production and is difficult to replace. So, 50% of all CO2 isn't power generation related.
  - nip180 6y ago
    In the US we generate on average 0.99lb of CO2 per kWh. The total output is 1.87b tons of CO2. Total CO2 emissions in the US were about 5.17b tons. So about 1/3 of emissions. It’s worth doing, considering we can reasonably execute this in a decade. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    It’s possible to synthesize hydrocarbon and other liquid fuels using CO2 from the air, or hydrogen which has no carbon in it. If you have a closed loop with your carbon, you eliminate the problem (still have particulates, NO etc, but that’s separate)
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    Enough for what? Cheaper nuclear power on the grid may actually increase demand for other goods, so it's not clear how much the benefit would be.
- phaemon 6y ago
  No, it's opposed by people who are numerate enough to understand that nuclear is ludicrously expensive and completely unnecessary. I live in Scotland. In the past 20 years we've gone from around 12% electricity from renewable to around 90%. The last coal fired station closed in 2016 and we've not added any new nuclear in that time. This is usually the point that someone handwaves that having more money and more people makes you less capable than Scotland...
  - sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
    What's the lower proportion renewable sources produced in the last 12 months (in one minute intervals)? If that is much lower than 90% you have to have some other source (or accept frequent randomish power cuts).
    - phaemon 6y ago
      Well, we don't have"randomish power cuts" so I guess someone solved that problem.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        I think it's interesting that someone has to insist on something that doesn't exist to prove their point...
        sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24529301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24529301 Fossil fuels provide the backup power source.
        phaemon 6y ago
        Yes, that's why we only get 90% from renewable. 10% is not. Out of interest, what percentage are you at?
- tobib 6y ago
  There are actual safety and environmental concerns that I wouldn't dismiss as "claiming to be fighting for the environment". I do agree though that even I used to be completely against nuclear power because of the unsolved waste problem. However in light of the last 25 years not having brought enough progress to prevent an environmental collapse I'm inclined to accept that now, as yet another thing we'll just have to figure out at some point.
  - gogopuppygogo 6y ago
    http://www.deepisolation.com http://www.deepisolation.com has solved the waste problem.
  - opo 6y ago
    >...I do agree though that even I used to be completely against nuclear power because of the unsolved waste problem. In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste could be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amount waste is very manageable (the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum) and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  We also need carbon tax to pay for carbon extraction plants: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-e... Put these plants in USA deep red states to create high paying blue collar jobs in construction. Help level out impact of coal mining ending.
- cma 6y ago
  Nuclear arms proliferation is a bigger risk than global warming, though there are reactor designs that try and minimize it.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    There are, anything that isn’t a breeder won’t build up enough plutonium or it will burn that too but it doesn’t mean you can’t convert them to breeders by changing the fuel cycle. To combat proliferation reactor designs aren’t the issue, you need to control the source of the fuel and it’s entire lifecycle. Building nuclear weapons isn’t hard, but it’s a project that requires a huge investment in infrastructure so proliferation has always been a question of will and consequences not capability.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Will you still be saying this if/when renewables are providing >80% of grid electricity?
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  If nuclear power was the safe clean panacea that people say. The dirty hippies would have be steamrolled long ago.
_jahh 6y ago
most critically electrifying everything in a city will both reduce that localized increased C02 level while also reducing ozone.
Proven 6y ago
Wrong. Those activities are indicators of us getting smarter. Civilization.

adrianN 6y ago

We in fact have multiple ideas how to improve the situation. The problem is not a lack of ideas, or deployable technology, the problem is a lack of political will to implement the necessary measures.

cbmuser 6y ago

We do. It’s called nuclear power and it‘s fought by those who claim they are fighting for the environment. > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

hhjinks 6y ago
Honest and good faith question here: assuming all electricity on the grid was nuclear, how much CO2 emission would remain? You can't just swap massive cargo ships to nuclear overnight. Would "just" making the power grid green be enough?
- whatisthiseven 6y ago
  No, power generation is about a quarter: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Transportation could push that total to 50% if all ICE cars were converted or destroyed and only electric vehicles were used (ignoring ships and trains). "Industry" includes CO2 waste byproducts which are much harder to reduce as many processes may struggle to eliminate that byproduct. Instead capture and sequestration would be needed. This is another 25% The rest are small, but since we need virtually all CO2 emissions to be zero, we are left with nearly another 25% that isn't tied to electric production and is difficult to replace. So, 50% of all CO2 isn't power generation related.
- nip180 6y ago
  In the US we generate on average 0.99lb of CO2 per kWh. The total output is 1.87b tons of CO2. Total CO2 emissions in the US were about 5.17b tons. So about 1/3 of emissions. It’s worth doing, considering we can reasonably execute this in a decade. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
- cameldrv 6y ago
  It’s possible to synthesize hydrocarbon and other liquid fuels using CO2 from the air, or hydrogen which has no carbon in it. If you have a closed loop with your carbon, you eliminate the problem (still have particulates, NO etc, but that’s separate)
- antisthenes 6y ago
  Enough for what? Cheaper nuclear power on the grid may actually increase demand for other goods, so it's not clear how much the benefit would be.
phaemon 6y ago
No, it's opposed by people who are numerate enough to understand that nuclear is ludicrously expensive and completely unnecessary. I live in Scotland. In the past 20 years we've gone from around 12% electricity from renewable to around 90%. The last coal fired station closed in 2016 and we've not added any new nuclear in that time. This is usually the point that someone handwaves that having more money and more people makes you less capable than Scotland...
- sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
  What's the lower proportion renewable sources produced in the last 12 months (in one minute intervals)? If that is much lower than 90% you have to have some other source (or accept frequent randomish power cuts).
  - phaemon 6y ago
    Well, we don't have"randomish power cuts" so I guess someone solved that problem.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I think it's interesting that someone has to insist on something that doesn't exist to prove their point...
      - sadfklsjlkjwt 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24529301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24529301 Fossil fuels provide the backup power source.
        phaemon 6y ago
        Yes, that's why we only get 90% from renewable. 10% is not. Out of interest, what percentage are you at?
tobib 6y ago
There are actual safety and environmental concerns that I wouldn't dismiss as "claiming to be fighting for the environment". I do agree though that even I used to be completely against nuclear power because of the unsolved waste problem. However in light of the last 25 years not having brought enough progress to prevent an environmental collapse I'm inclined to accept that now, as yet another thing we'll just have to figure out at some point.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  http://www.deepisolation.com http://www.deepisolation.com has solved the waste problem.
- opo 6y ago
  >...I do agree though that even I used to be completely against nuclear power because of the unsolved waste problem. In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste could be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amount waste is very manageable (the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum) and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.
gogopuppygogo 6y ago
We also need carbon tax to pay for carbon extraction plants: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-e... Put these plants in USA deep red states to create high paying blue collar jobs in construction. Help level out impact of coal mining ending.
cma 6y ago
Nuclear arms proliferation is a bigger risk than global warming, though there are reactor designs that try and minimize it.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  There are, anything that isn’t a breeder won’t build up enough plutonium or it will burn that too but it doesn’t mean you can’t convert them to breeders by changing the fuel cycle. To combat proliferation reactor designs aren’t the issue, you need to control the source of the fuel and it’s entire lifecycle. Building nuclear weapons isn’t hard, but it’s a project that requires a huge investment in infrastructure so proliferation has always been a question of will and consequences not capability.
jessaustin 6y ago
Will you still be saying this if/when renewables are providing >80% of grid electricity?
Gibbon1 6y ago
If nuclear power was the safe clean panacea that people say. The dirty hippies would have be steamrolled long ago.

_jahh 6y ago

most critically electrifying everything in a city will both reduce that localized increased C02 level while also reducing ozone.

Proven 6y ago

Wrong. Those activities are indicators of us getting smarter. Civilization.