5 ms·

If this is the only answer to climate change, we are fucked. Except for #5 I would be miserable if I had to live like this, and I expect most people in develope

If this is the only answer to climate change, we are fucked. Except for #5 I would be miserable if I had to live like this, and I expect most people in developed countries would be as well.

paulcole 5y ago
Either we change how we live or we’re fucked. And from what I’ve seen, people don’t mind being fucked tomorrow as long as they’re OK today. Even better if they can be OK-ish tomorrow as long as somebody else gets fucked worse. Do you really truly believe that there’s going to be a magic climate change solution that allows the developed world to continue living the way it has?
- deepnotderp 5y ago
  > “Do you really truly believe that there’s going to be a magic climate change solution that allows the developed world to continue living the way it has?” Yes, it’s called nuclear power
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Nope. Nuclear can’t save us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835924 Well, unless you’re talking about fusion, which, at this point, truly is a “magical” solution.
    - tuatoru 5y ago
      Hey, if you're going for magic, why stop at half measures? Direct matter to energy conversion or nothing!
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    I literally laughed out loud. Not going to happen. We need solutions rolled out at global scale by 2030. Nuclear power projects don't have a good track record for speed. We need solutions that no-one is going to object to and for which the whole supply chain is already huge. Nuclear's cooling water demand alone makes it vulnerable to protest. I'm hoping that Form's iron-air grid-scale battery is manufacturable, scalable and economical. Shouldn't be too hard to commit a few percent of the world's iron refining capacity to making grid-scale batteries to complement solar and wind power. If not Form's, then one or more of their competitors' batteries. I sure hope someone cracks it. Last resort, we could use Lithium chemistries, but that wouldn't be so environmentally benign and would take a bit longer to scale out.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      You must be young? You do remember when France is 85% Nuclear and they built out their entire national infrastructure very quickly. Or as part of 'cultural memory'? I'm too young, but I remember people talking about it. We could literally build those identical, 1960's style designs if we absolutely had to. Of course, we'd build something a little more modern, even just a little more modern Canadian CANDU reactors would work. We take forever to build them for organizational reasons, not because there's something that's inherently difficult that takes 30 years to do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
      - tuatoru 5y ago
        > You must be young? I wish. > You do remember when France is 85% Nuclear and they built out their entire national infrastructure very quickly. No, I don't remember it; I was a long way away and young. I still don't speak French. Yes, it's a bit sad that we can no longer do what a bunch of French bureaucrats with their 30-hour work weeks and 8-week vacances could do in the 1970s--even when we're desperate.
        jollybean 5y ago
        We could do it immediately. We could literally copy their not-very-good designs if we had to. Those plants are still effective and operational and provide a major economy with 85% (!!!) of their electricity. They build them quickly and it's worked out fine.
- jollybean 5y ago
  There is a 'magic climate change solution' it's called 'Nuclear Energy'. We can cleanly provide for our energy needs for the next 10000 years no problem. It just requires conscientious and organized behaviour on our part. Obviously there are questions as to how well, as a human race, we are organized ... but we can 100% do it, right now. We just have to get a long and act responsibly.
  - wnkrshm 5y ago
    We could do a lot of things right now, we could end war forever, we could feed every person on Earth, we could have medical treatment for everyone... why isn't it happening? We are not fighting a technical problem here.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > We just have to get along and act responsibly This is the magic climate change solution. You're yada-yada'ing over the part that is going to be all but impossible.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      I'm not yada-yada-ing. We already have huge networks of Nuclear reactors. France is 85% Nuclear. The entire Western world could be within a decade. Do you think we've retrograded and lost our ability to 'do stuff'? Maybe politically, but not materially. We know exactly what to do and there are no material barriers to fairly widespread Nuclear Adoption, it just takes a bit of political will.
      - paulcole 5y ago
        > The entire Western world could be within a decade. The political capital and will to accomplish what you're describing is absolutely enormous. That's the hard part.
      - toast0 5y ago
        > The entire Western world could be within a decade. It could be, but it's unlikely to be. People in Germany and Japan are quite opposed. In the US, it doesn't make economic sense. Not going to make it to 85% of the western world without those countries on board, even if you don't consider Japan to be in the west. Regardless of the merits, people don't want these generators near them, and there's not a lot of site options that are close to transmission lines and other important needs, but not close to people.

If this is the only answer to climate change, we are fucked. Except for #5 I would be miserable if I had to live like this, and I expect most people in developed countries would be as well.

paulcole 5y ago

Either we change how we live or we’re fucked. And from what I’ve seen, people don’t mind being fucked tomorrow as long as they’re OK today. Even better if they can be OK-ish tomorrow as long as somebody else gets fucked worse. Do you really truly believe that there’s going to be a magic climate change solution that allows the developed world to continue living the way it has?

deepnotderp 5y ago
> “Do you really truly believe that there’s going to be a magic climate change solution that allows the developed world to continue living the way it has?” Yes, it’s called nuclear power
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Nope. Nuclear can’t save us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835924 Well, unless you’re talking about fusion, which, at this point, truly is a “magical” solution.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Hey, if you're going for magic, why stop at half measures? Direct matter to energy conversion or nothing!
- tuatoru 5y ago
  I literally laughed out loud. Not going to happen. We need solutions rolled out at global scale by 2030. Nuclear power projects don't have a good track record for speed. We need solutions that no-one is going to object to and for which the whole supply chain is already huge. Nuclear's cooling water demand alone makes it vulnerable to protest. I'm hoping that Form's iron-air grid-scale battery is manufacturable, scalable and economical. Shouldn't be too hard to commit a few percent of the world's iron refining capacity to making grid-scale batteries to complement solar and wind power. If not Form's, then one or more of their competitors' batteries. I sure hope someone cracks it. Last resort, we could use Lithium chemistries, but that wouldn't be so environmentally benign and would take a bit longer to scale out.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    You must be young? You do remember when France is 85% Nuclear and they built out their entire national infrastructure very quickly. Or as part of 'cultural memory'? I'm too young, but I remember people talking about it. We could literally build those identical, 1960's style designs if we absolutely had to. Of course, we'd build something a little more modern, even just a little more modern Canadian CANDU reactors would work. We take forever to build them for organizational reasons, not because there's something that's inherently difficult that takes 30 years to do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
    - tuatoru 5y ago
      > You must be young? I wish. > You do remember when France is 85% Nuclear and they built out their entire national infrastructure very quickly. No, I don't remember it; I was a long way away and young. I still don't speak French. Yes, it's a bit sad that we can no longer do what a bunch of French bureaucrats with their 30-hour work weeks and 8-week vacances could do in the 1970s--even when we're desperate.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        We could do it immediately. We could literally copy their not-very-good designs if we had to. Those plants are still effective and operational and provide a major economy with 85% (!!!) of their electricity. They build them quickly and it's worked out fine.
jollybean 5y ago
There is a 'magic climate change solution' it's called 'Nuclear Energy'. We can cleanly provide for our energy needs for the next 10000 years no problem. It just requires conscientious and organized behaviour on our part. Obviously there are questions as to how well, as a human race, we are organized ... but we can 100% do it, right now. We just have to get a long and act responsibly.
- wnkrshm 5y ago
  We could do a lot of things right now, we could end war forever, we could feed every person on Earth, we could have medical treatment for everyone... why isn't it happening? We are not fighting a technical problem here.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > We just have to get along and act responsibly This is the magic climate change solution. You're yada-yada'ing over the part that is going to be all but impossible.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I'm not yada-yada-ing. We already have huge networks of Nuclear reactors. France is 85% Nuclear. The entire Western world could be within a decade. Do you think we've retrograded and lost our ability to 'do stuff'? Maybe politically, but not materially. We know exactly what to do and there are no material barriers to fairly widespread Nuclear Adoption, it just takes a bit of political will.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      > The entire Western world could be within a decade. The political capital and will to accomplish what you're describing is absolutely enormous. That's the hard part.
    - toast0 5y ago
      > The entire Western world could be within a decade. It could be, but it's unlikely to be. People in Germany and Japan are quite opposed. In the US, it doesn't make economic sense. Not going to make it to 85% of the western world without those countries on board, even if you don't consider Japan to be in the west. Regardless of the merits, people don't want these generators near them, and there's not a lot of site options that are close to transmission lines and other important needs, but not close to people.