11 ms·

Honestly I think this is good and inevitable part of living with renewable energy. Renewable really is different - there are times of the day and days of the ye

by zz865 5y ago

Honestly I think this is good and inevitable part of living with renewable energy. Renewable really is different - there are times of the day and days of the year when electricity is scarce and expensive, other windy sunny days when its virtually free. People will either pay more or save money by changing their lifestyle to match the weather and seasons. Variable pricing and demand management means people don't wash their clothes or charge their cars on cold nights, they charge during the day or when its windy. Maybe people have to pay more to use AC on the hottest days and people will choose to go to the beach/mall/office instead.

hguant 5y ago
>Honestly I think this is good and inevitable part of living with renewable energy. "It's good that the little people suffer, it will make them pay attention and live a more virtuous life."
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
I tend to agree, I can't see how we can get to a zero carbon world without some discomfort. Politicians who tell you we can achieve it without changing our lifestyle are lying.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Or we could just use nuclear and not have discomfort.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Nuclear won't help you fly across the Atlantic.
    - JorgeGT 5y ago
      Sure it will. Split water, make hydrogen, burn it in gas turbines: https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/20200507_Hydrogen-Powered-Aviation-report.pdf https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/202...
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        We have to line up a lot of things we haven't done before to make that work. Great in theory but the reality today is if I fly across the Atlantic it will create a ton of extra carbon in the atmosphere. Out of all the things we do air travel looks like the least likely thing to be de-carbonised to me.
- deschutes 5y ago
  It's easy to argue for ascetism for other people.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    It's easy to stick you're head in the sand and ignore the problem.
- rc2634 5y ago
  Do you actually think this will make a difference wrt to climate change when most of the carbon pollution in the new few decades will be coming from fast developing countries and China?
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Carbon emissions are a problem caused by the rich, trying to cast the blame onto China is a red herring. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y?fbclid=IwAR0AG6Lz_CcR2XY0uxVvKNmjnlWP0YLXl6iBcUfl8gcZmTjR7-ZVb3W3oes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y?fbclid=Iw...
    - rc2634 5y ago
      I wasn’t blaming anyone. I was just stating a fact. Americans consuming less energy is not going to prevent countries like China and India from consuming more energy coming from dirty sources such as coal. Americans consuming less material on the other hand can decrease carbon output in China but that will mostly like just be replaced by material consumption from the fast-developing nations.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        Carbon emissions from India are 1.9 tons per capita, for China it is 7.38 per capita and America is 15.52 tons per capita. China would be lower still if it wasn't a factory for American consumer goods.
        rc2634 5y ago
        Looking at per capita is useless when those countries have a combined population of over 2 billion (~6x US population). Climate change and the Earth doesn’t care about per capita, it only cares about the total output of carbon. The reality is that American output has most likely peaked, while China and India will keep growing for decades to come.
        5y ago
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  "Zero carbon" is not a serious or viable goal, and the only politicians I'm aware of who are promising this are ones with big green constituencies that need to be mollified. Yes, they are lying, because their voters want what is impossible. If that's your voter base, then the politicians who get elected will be the ones who lie to you. FYI, China is going to open 120 new coal plants this year, adding 100 million tons of coal capacity. It is already emitting more carbon than the Western world, and it's just getting going. There is no green movement there to placate, so they adopted efficency goals of reducing carbon emissions per unit of GDP. Primarily, they want to clean up the air, which means long term moving away from burning coal to generate power as well as cars that burn gasoline. But they are not willing to do this at the expense of economic growth - nor should they. They will reduce usage of coal once sufficient capacity for alternatives is in place, and not before. Nor will they stop doing things like flying planes or making plastics when there are no alternatives. What is a viable goal is reducing the amount of carbon per dollar of GDP as more efficient processes are adopted, but it's not going to go to zero. As the reasonable costs of climate change (according to the latest IPCC report) have been estimated from 0.2% to 2% of global income, it makes little sense to cut GDP by 3% in order to save a reduction in 2%. So apart from those green constitutencies who are convinced the sky will turn red and the clouds will start burning, the rest of the world is not going to reduce carbon emissions at any cost. That's a non-starter. That carbon/GDP ratio can however, fall quite a bit, for example with large scale adoption of nuclear power, so it's a bit puzzling why the same same absolutist groups also oppose nuclear power. I really wish they would join us pro-nuclear types. Similarly there seems to be a lot of opposition to things like hydrogen fuel, when that's the most likely replacement for planes and heavy trucks, due to its energy density. So really if we want more efficient use of energy, we should be investing in developing better energy sources rather than trying to convince the world to "change lifestyles". Who knows, maybe in 100 years fossil fuels will be looked at in the same way as burning wood for steam is today, but it's not going to happen by changing lifestyles, it will happen with technological breakthroughs.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    I largely agree with what you said but: >As the reasonable costs of climate change (according to the latest IPCC report) have been estimated from 0.2% to 2% of global income That assumes we keep carbon below 450ppm and is only up to 2030. Also it only gets down to the bottom end of that range if you pick the most optimistic models.
vorpalhex 5y ago
California has had rolling blackouts now for a few years, and it gets hot enough that the height of summer is absolutely risky for the infirm and elderly. I don't imagine making the problem worse is going to help those who depend on medical devices either. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/california-power-outage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/california-power-outag...
- zz865 5y ago
  That's the core of the problem though right, sacrifice something today to help reduce the greenhouse problem in the future.
  - finiteseries 5y ago
    No, that is specifically the core worldview of a century old strain of environmental activism that has been repeatedly dunked on by reality & technological progress at nearly every single turn. “Sacrifice someone today to help reduce the overpopulation/famine/nuclear war/greenhouse problem in the future, or else doom!”
tomjen3 5y ago
More likely they will blame whomever is in office and it will be yet another wedge issue.
crisdux 5y ago
We do not need to sacrifice our prosperity in order to decarbonize our electricity grid. What you are suggesting will result in more inequality, more avoidable deaths and slower progress. What you are advocating for is counter productive and will inspire a backlash that will make your goals harder to achieve. We need to be pragmatic.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> People will either pay more or save money by changing their lifestyle Or this will massively backfire and we’ll roll back to dirty power. I don’t understand the antinuclear orthodoxy. Just when I thought the Baby Boomer/GenX cultural dividend couldn’t throw another turd in the punch bowl, we get dated ideology around nuclear power threatening to throw back decarbonisation by at least a generation.
- Gimpei 5y ago
  What does this have to do with boomers? Who do you think built that plant?
  - souplesse 5y ago
    I think the origins of the anti-nuclear movement are generally associated with the flower-power/Summer of Love/anti-war/early environmental movements of the late 60s/early 70s, which are generally associated with the baby boomer generation. Diablo Canyon began construction in 1968. The oldest baby boomer would have been 22. Seems reasonable to conclude that the decision to build the plant predates them. EDIT: Confused by the downvote—does someone disagree on the timeline?
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      Anti-nuclear movement (1960-1980) "The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The formation of green parties in the 1970s and 1980s was often a direct result of anti-nuclear politics." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
      - souplesse 5y ago
        > since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power Confused—isn’t that what I said?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
andbberger 5y ago
we need more energy, not less! if you want to be an ascetic because you have an irrational fear of nuclear energy go right ahead. but we need to be bringing TWs online to run those carbon skimmers and nuclear is the only real route to do so
ch4s3 5y ago
Who are you to make that choice for people? Heat waves and blackouts kill lots of people. Your position seems religious, and impractical. You’re treating energy use like sin. It is in my opinion an awful way to view the world.
08-15 5y ago
> People will either pay more or save money by changing their lifestyle to match the weather and seasons. Absolutely. People will soon adapt to Renewables by heating their homes only in summer, when electricity is cheap, and not in winter, when it is expensive. They will also use electric lights more during the day, when electricity is plentiful, and not at night, when it is scarce. This isn't really new; after all, for millenia, people responded to droughts by simply eating less in the years with bad harvests, and they were happy, weren't they? In a world powered by Renewables, electricity in worthless during summer days and priceless during winter nights. What a glorious future indeed!

by zz865 5y ago

hguant 5y ago

>Honestly I think this is good and inevitable part of living with renewable energy. "It's good that the little people suffer, it will make them pay attention and live a more virtuous life."

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

I tend to agree, I can't see how we can get to a zero carbon world without some discomfort. Politicians who tell you we can achieve it without changing our lifestyle are lying.

_-david-_ 5y ago
Or we could just use nuclear and not have discomfort.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Nuclear won't help you fly across the Atlantic.
  - JorgeGT 5y ago
    Sure it will. Split water, make hydrogen, burn it in gas turbines: https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/20200507_Hydrogen-Powered-Aviation-report.pdf https://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/202...
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      We have to line up a lot of things we haven't done before to make that work. Great in theory but the reality today is if I fly across the Atlantic it will create a ton of extra carbon in the atmosphere. Out of all the things we do air travel looks like the least likely thing to be de-carbonised to me.
deschutes 5y ago
It's easy to argue for ascetism for other people.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  It's easy to stick you're head in the sand and ignore the problem.
rc2634 5y ago
Do you actually think this will make a difference wrt to climate change when most of the carbon pollution in the new few decades will be coming from fast developing countries and China?
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Carbon emissions are a problem caused by the rich, trying to cast the blame onto China is a red herring. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y?fbclid=IwAR0AG6Lz_CcR2XY0uxVvKNmjnlWP0YLXl6iBcUfl8gcZmTjR7-ZVb3W3oes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y?fbclid=Iw...
  - rc2634 5y ago
    I wasn’t blaming anyone. I was just stating a fact. Americans consuming less energy is not going to prevent countries like China and India from consuming more energy coming from dirty sources such as coal. Americans consuming less material on the other hand can decrease carbon output in China but that will mostly like just be replaced by material consumption from the fast-developing nations.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      Carbon emissions from India are 1.9 tons per capita, for China it is 7.38 per capita and America is 15.52 tons per capita. China would be lower still if it wasn't a factory for American consumer goods.
      - rc2634 5y ago
        Looking at per capita is useless when those countries have a combined population of over 2 billion (~6x US population). Climate change and the Earth doesn’t care about per capita, it only cares about the total output of carbon. The reality is that American output has most likely peaked, while China and India will keep growing for decades to come.
        5y ago
rsj_hn 5y ago
"Zero carbon" is not a serious or viable goal, and the only politicians I'm aware of who are promising this are ones with big green constituencies that need to be mollified. Yes, they are lying, because their voters want what is impossible. If that's your voter base, then the politicians who get elected will be the ones who lie to you. FYI, China is going to open 120 new coal plants this year, adding 100 million tons of coal capacity. It is already emitting more carbon than the Western world, and it's just getting going. There is no green movement there to placate, so they adopted efficency goals of reducing carbon emissions per unit of GDP. Primarily, they want to clean up the air, which means long term moving away from burning coal to generate power as well as cars that burn gasoline. But they are not willing to do this at the expense of economic growth - nor should they. They will reduce usage of coal once sufficient capacity for alternatives is in place, and not before. Nor will they stop doing things like flying planes or making plastics when there are no alternatives. What is a viable goal is reducing the amount of carbon per dollar of GDP as more efficient processes are adopted, but it's not going to go to zero. As the reasonable costs of climate change (according to the latest IPCC report) have been estimated from 0.2% to 2% of global income, it makes little sense to cut GDP by 3% in order to save a reduction in 2%. So apart from those green constitutencies who are convinced the sky will turn red and the clouds will start burning, the rest of the world is not going to reduce carbon emissions at any cost. That's a non-starter. That carbon/GDP ratio can however, fall quite a bit, for example with large scale adoption of nuclear power, so it's a bit puzzling why the same same absolutist groups also oppose nuclear power. I really wish they would join us pro-nuclear types. Similarly there seems to be a lot of opposition to things like hydrogen fuel, when that's the most likely replacement for planes and heavy trucks, due to its energy density. So really if we want more efficient use of energy, we should be investing in developing better energy sources rather than trying to convince the world to "change lifestyles". Who knows, maybe in 100 years fossil fuels will be looked at in the same way as burning wood for steam is today, but it's not going to happen by changing lifestyles, it will happen with technological breakthroughs.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  I largely agree with what you said but: >As the reasonable costs of climate change (according to the latest IPCC report) have been estimated from 0.2% to 2% of global income That assumes we keep carbon below 450ppm and is only up to 2030. Also it only gets down to the bottom end of that range if you pick the most optimistic models.

vorpalhex 5y ago

California has had rolling blackouts now for a few years, and it gets hot enough that the height of summer is absolutely risky for the infirm and elderly. I don't imagine making the problem worse is going to help those who depend on medical devices either. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/california-power-outage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/california-power-outag...

zz865 5y ago
That's the core of the problem though right, sacrifice something today to help reduce the greenhouse problem in the future.
- finiteseries 5y ago
  No, that is specifically the core worldview of a century old strain of environmental activism that has been repeatedly dunked on by reality & technological progress at nearly every single turn. “Sacrifice someone today to help reduce the overpopulation/famine/nuclear war/greenhouse problem in the future, or else doom!”

tomjen3 5y ago

More likely they will blame whomever is in office and it will be yet another wedge issue.

crisdux 5y ago

We do not need to sacrifice our prosperity in order to decarbonize our electricity grid. What you are suggesting will result in more inequality, more avoidable deaths and slower progress. What you are advocating for is counter productive and will inspire a backlash that will make your goals harder to achieve. We need to be pragmatic.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> People will either pay more or save money by changing their lifestyle Or this will massively backfire and we’ll roll back to dirty power. I don’t understand the antinuclear orthodoxy. Just when I thought the Baby Boomer/GenX cultural dividend couldn’t throw another turd in the punch bowl, we get dated ideology around nuclear power threatening to throw back decarbonisation by at least a generation.

Gimpei 5y ago
What does this have to do with boomers? Who do you think built that plant?
- souplesse 5y ago
  I think the origins of the anti-nuclear movement are generally associated with the flower-power/Summer of Love/anti-war/early environmental movements of the late 60s/early 70s, which are generally associated with the baby boomer generation. Diablo Canyon began construction in 1968. The oldest baby boomer would have been 22. Seems reasonable to conclude that the decision to build the plant predates them. EDIT: Confused by the downvote—does someone disagree on the timeline?
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    Anti-nuclear movement (1960-1980) "The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The formation of green parties in the 1970s and 1980s was often a direct result of anti-nuclear politics." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
    - souplesse 5y ago
      > since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power Confused—isn’t that what I said?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

andbberger 5y ago

we need more energy, not less! if you want to be an ascetic because you have an irrational fear of nuclear energy go right ahead. but we need to be bringing TWs online to run those carbon skimmers and nuclear is the only real route to do so

ch4s3 5y ago

Who are you to make that choice for people? Heat waves and blackouts kill lots of people. Your position seems religious, and impractical. You’re treating energy use like sin. It is in my opinion an awful way to view the world.

08-15 5y ago

> People will either pay more or save money by changing their lifestyle to match the weather and seasons. Absolutely. People will soon adapt to Renewables by heating their homes only in summer, when electricity is cheap, and not in winter, when it is expensive. They will also use electric lights more during the day, when electricity is plentiful, and not at night, when it is scarce. This isn't really new; after all, for millenia, people responded to droughts by simply eating less in the years with bad harvests, and they were happy, weren't they? In a world powered by Renewables, electricity in worthless during summer days and priceless during winter nights. What a glorious future indeed!