4 ms·

> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutel

by cletus 5y ago

> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutely true. But what are governments, really? They're a reflection of the people they govern. So governments haven't responded because it simply isn't a priority for most people. I've long held the view that we'll only have a solution to climate change when it becomes economic to do so. The pandemic has only strengthened that view. We have millions of people who won't even mildly inconvenience themselves to help stop others (and themselves) from getting seriously ill or dying. And you want those same people to do something about climate change? By "economic" I mean we simply need cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels. That could be because something else gets cheaper, fossil fuels due to scarcity simply get more expensive or some combination of the two. The biggest hope for that currently seems to be solar, which has seen its price plummet in the last 20 years. We already have the technology to make fuel from the air but there's no point burning fossil fuels to do that. If however your energy came from a cheaper source there is a price point where that would make sense. At that point, gas-guzzling vehicles become carbon-neutral.

panick21 5y ago
Solar is already cheaper. But from the theoretical energy to actual stuff you can put into your tank to drive your car is a long distance. And you need both solar and storage to approximate the reliability, and that is not even remotely solved. And even if you had 1-2 storage, it would still not be reliable in a few important situations.
- Factorium 5y ago
  Solar can't provide district heating. When temperatures reach -10, -20 celcius, a heat pump's COP is near 1.0, at which point its basically just a space heater. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are the perfect solution for Europe: there's plenty of water, typically cold temperatures, intelligent and stable populations, and high densities. Already nuclear plants around the continent provide heat for district heating systems. Every major town and city in Europe should have a small modular nuclear power plant. We need to begin manufacturing these units in the dozens each year, ideally the hundreds for installation around the OECD. In places like Australia the plant can also be used to directly power desalinisation and the water will also provide cooling. Otherwise, the major unsolvable issue for Nuclear is the need to provide a direct water source.
  - panick21 5y ago
    You don't have to tell me I have been nuclear advocate for decades. I fucking disgusted by Switerland (where I live) making nuclear research illegal.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      Oh? Since when? I'm asking because of [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 :-)
mullingitover 5y ago
> This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutely true. But what are governments, really? They're a reflection of the people they govern. This is a pretty naive assumption. There's a pretty huge divergence in what the voting public wants and what governments actually do. For example, the US voting public overwhelmingly wants cannabis legalization, and that is not even remotely a legislative priority. It's delusional to think the government is going to act on the desires of the voting public for something as economically significant as carbon emissions. > I've long held the view that we'll only have a solution to climate change when it becomes economic to do so. It'll only be obviously economic to act long after the damage is done, this is the problem. We had enough trouble rallying the government for something as short-term and obvious as covid, good luck showing those with huge political power and vested interests in the status quo that their short term interests are going to be a disaster in a few decades.

by cletus 5y ago

panick21 5y ago

Solar is already cheaper. But from the theoretical energy to actual stuff you can put into your tank to drive your car is a long distance. And you need both solar and storage to approximate the reliability, and that is not even remotely solved. And even if you had 1-2 storage, it would still not be reliable in a few important situations.

Factorium 5y ago
Solar can't provide district heating. When temperatures reach -10, -20 celcius, a heat pump's COP is near 1.0, at which point its basically just a space heater. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are the perfect solution for Europe: there's plenty of water, typically cold temperatures, intelligent and stable populations, and high densities. Already nuclear plants around the continent provide heat for district heating systems. Every major town and city in Europe should have a small modular nuclear power plant. We need to begin manufacturing these units in the dozens each year, ideally the hundreds for installation around the OECD. In places like Australia the plant can also be used to directly power desalinisation and the water will also provide cooling. Otherwise, the major unsolvable issue for Nuclear is the need to provide a direct water source.
- panick21 5y ago
  You don't have to tell me I have been nuclear advocate for decades. I fucking disgusted by Switerland (where I live) making nuclear research illegal.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Oh? Since when? I'm asking because of [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 :-)

mullingitover 5y ago

> This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutely true. But what are governments, really? They're a reflection of the people they govern. This is a pretty naive assumption. There's a pretty huge divergence in what the voting public wants and what governments actually do. For example, the US voting public overwhelmingly wants cannabis legalization, and that is not even remotely a legislative priority. It's delusional to think the government is going to act on the desires of the voting public for something as economically significant as carbon emissions. > I've long held the view that we'll only have a solution to climate change when it becomes economic to do so. It'll only be obviously economic to act long after the damage is done, this is the problem. We had enough trouble rallying the government for something as short-term and obvious as covid, good luck showing those with huge political power and vested interests in the status quo that their short term interests are going to be a disaster in a few decades.