3 ms·

It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real and that we just disagree on how fast we need to act. Because then we could spend 12 billion to ret

It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real and that we just disagree on how fast we need to act. Because then we could spend 12 billion to retire the entire coal mining industry in the United States of America and retrofit the entire power grid with whatever mix of solar, wind, and nuclear floats each state's boat. It's about $2.6T to take all 128M homes in the US and convert them to solar with 40 kilowatt-hours of battery backup. These are big numbers but they are not astronomical. But we can't so here we go. Evidently the extreme weather in Texas last winter and the entire West Coast choking in smog all summer is insufficient evidence that anything is going on whatsoever. Good luck with that mindset.

gonational 5y ago
Why does everyone need to agree? Is this a religion? (rhetorical - of course it is) Science is about making predictions (hence hypotheses). When your predictions are always wrong 100% of the time I think it's time to go ahead and retire. "Climate science" predicts nothing correctly. In fact, it's so incorrect, that now there is a global initiative to attempt to censor information that counters the narrative they present. I wonder if this has anything to do with a GLOBAL EFFING TAX that these same exact people want to levy on the entire population of the planet. No chance there's any kind of conflict of interest there… Good grief.
version_five 5y ago
My view is that people are too interested in making political hay with climate change to actually do something about it. It's better to have a vague threat you can roll out to get votes (I mean this for both sides) than just getting on with some action. Technological solutions that provide for where we are in human progress are really the only non-partisan way to proceed. This means getting over the evidentiary burden (i don't care of there is some chance climate change is not happening or not caused by humans) and looking at energy solutions as you've mentioned as well as carbon capture solutions. Fighting in the weeds about which study says what is irrelevant, and trying to walk back from human progress and implement some kind of climate socialism is an obvious non starter, so let's tackle this as a technological solution that is within reach, and get on with it. Unfortunately, this doesn't really increase any one/groups immediate power, so nobody advocates for it
rsj_hn 5y ago
Because the anti-CO2 coalition is primarily an environmental coalition whose main skills are condemning, taxing, and lecturing the public about grave injustices. But when it comes down to actually lobbying for the deployment of mass industrial processes at scale, or recognizing which solutions are viable and which are not, then they feel very uncomfortable advocating for mass buildout of nuclear. They pretend that we can all adopt solar and then handwave away the issues with reliability. And when confronted with these problems, you hear things like "well, of course we can't have reliable electricity. We need to change our lifestyles, etc". So it's always back to scolding and blaming human behavior to overcome their lack of engineering competency. But people don't like being taxed and blamed for turning the lights on when they come home, nor should they be. There is no reason why anyone needs to care what powers their home. It should all be reliable, cheap, and clean. Getting there requires a very different kind of lobby than the current anti-CO2 lobby. It requires a lobby that has a sober-minded - rather than a utopian - understanding of different energy generating solutions, and finally abstains from blaming the public or trying to change end user behavior, but views this purely as a technical challenge to migrate from one reliable infrastructure to another, a migration that should be completely invisible to the end user, providing them with the same or better reliability, and the same or better cost. If you can do that, then you will see the political opposition vanish. If you still just want to blame people and tell them they need to stop eating meat and suffer high prices to heat their home in the winter, then the political opposition will increase.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > getting there requires ... a migration that should be completely invisible to the end user, providing them with the same or better reliability, and the same or better cost. So you're saying we just need to remove all the excess CO2 from the air for free? And you think that people who value the environment are the "utopian" ones?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    No, I'm talking about migrating to energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels. I don't see "removing excess CO2" as a reasonable goal. This again goes to "recognizing which solutions are viable and which are not" Now perhaps that will change, technologically, in the future, so I'd be willing to fund some R&D for that, but barring some breakthrough we are not going to be removing CO2 from the air.
verdverm 5y ago
Solar doesn't work everywhere, nor wind. What is the environmental impact to create all those batteries? Does that cost include converting heating systems to electric? Would better windows have a better ROI?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Better windows certainly have a better ROI, but they do not get you to replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear or solar/wind + battery does. Nuclear fortunately works everywhere and does not require batteries. It does, however, take engineering skill in order to build and operate, whereas a solar panel can be ordered from China rather cheaply. In the future, I guarantee you that China will mass produce small, safe, relatively idiot-proof nuclear plants and export them all over the world in Belt and Road version 2.0. They will bring in an all Chinese labor force to build it and quite possibly also to operate it or at least provide immediate support. Many of the people angry at China for not making meaningful CO2 commitments will praise them for saving the planet. As the West continues to de-skill and dumb down, we may even need them to come to the U.S. and generate reliable power for us.
- varelse 5y ago
  Funny you should say that. So it turns out providing 40 kWh of battery backup to 128M homes would create about 500M tons of CO2. In comparison, the coal industry annually contributes 1.9B tons of CO2 and spews 120M tons of toxic waste which would be gone if we shut this industry down for the low low price of $12B. Conclusion: there really isn't a good argument against this other than people are being dumb. Or pray tell what that argument is. Also once again I already mentioned nuclear as part of the solution where solar doesn't work. I continue to be confused as to why people keep choosing to ignore that.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    One might note that getting solar roof panels can be a pain in certain localities and that insurance companies are dropping people for having large batteries or EVs due to fire risk. You can cherry pick a few numbers, but it does not come close to the full accounting required for a proper analysis. Not saying it's a bad goal to switch over, just that the true costs are not being expressed, and that it's not some simple thing you can just do
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
>It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real The reactions of various pockets of humanity to climate change and COVID gives me the feeling that a study of the psychology of the "acceptance of ideas" is long overdue. I used to be amazed, but not any more. It's predictable, no matter how illogical. Some kind of variation on "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". Bad news will not be accepted, by default, without extraordinary evidence, the messenger will be shot, and the source will be character assassinated. Good news will prevail until the (unexpectedly strong) dam of denial is breached by brutal reality. And it will surprise the masses.
argomo 5y ago
Industry funded propaganda and bought politicians. Then it (in the US) got polarized along partisan lines. Geopolitically, everyone wants to solve it, but nobody wants to take a big hit to their own prospects.

gonational 5y ago

Why does everyone need to agree? Is this a religion? (rhetorical - of course it is) Science is about making predictions (hence hypotheses). When your predictions are always wrong 100% of the time I think it's time to go ahead and retire. "Climate science" predicts nothing correctly. In fact, it's so incorrect, that now there is a global initiative to attempt to censor information that counters the narrative they present. I wonder if this has anything to do with a GLOBAL EFFING TAX that these same exact people want to levy on the entire population of the planet. No chance there's any kind of conflict of interest there… Good grief.

version_five 5y ago

My view is that people are too interested in making political hay with climate change to actually do something about it. It's better to have a vague threat you can roll out to get votes (I mean this for both sides) than just getting on with some action. Technological solutions that provide for where we are in human progress are really the only non-partisan way to proceed. This means getting over the evidentiary burden (i don't care of there is some chance climate change is not happening or not caused by humans) and looking at energy solutions as you've mentioned as well as carbon capture solutions. Fighting in the weeds about which study says what is irrelevant, and trying to walk back from human progress and implement some kind of climate socialism is an obvious non starter, so let's tackle this as a technological solution that is within reach, and get on with it. Unfortunately, this doesn't really increase any one/groups immediate power, so nobody advocates for it

rsj_hn 5y ago

Because the anti-CO2 coalition is primarily an environmental coalition whose main skills are condemning, taxing, and lecturing the public about grave injustices. But when it comes down to actually lobbying for the deployment of mass industrial processes at scale, or recognizing which solutions are viable and which are not, then they feel very uncomfortable advocating for mass buildout of nuclear. They pretend that we can all adopt solar and then handwave away the issues with reliability. And when confronted with these problems, you hear things like "well, of course we can't have reliable electricity. We need to change our lifestyles, etc". So it's always back to scolding and blaming human behavior to overcome their lack of engineering competency. But people don't like being taxed and blamed for turning the lights on when they come home, nor should they be. There is no reason why anyone needs to care what powers their home. It should all be reliable, cheap, and clean. Getting there requires a very different kind of lobby than the current anti-CO2 lobby. It requires a lobby that has a sober-minded - rather than a utopian - understanding of different energy generating solutions, and finally abstains from blaming the public or trying to change end user behavior, but views this purely as a technical challenge to migrate from one reliable infrastructure to another, a migration that should be completely invisible to the end user, providing them with the same or better reliability, and the same or better cost. If you can do that, then you will see the political opposition vanish. If you still just want to blame people and tell them they need to stop eating meat and suffer high prices to heat their home in the winter, then the political opposition will increase.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> getting there requires ... a migration that should be completely invisible to the end user, providing them with the same or better reliability, and the same or better cost. So you're saying we just need to remove all the excess CO2 from the air for free? And you think that people who value the environment are the "utopian" ones?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  No, I'm talking about migrating to energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels. I don't see "removing excess CO2" as a reasonable goal. This again goes to "recognizing which solutions are viable and which are not" Now perhaps that will change, technologically, in the future, so I'd be willing to fund some R&D for that, but barring some breakthrough we are not going to be removing CO2 from the air.

verdverm 5y ago

Solar doesn't work everywhere, nor wind. What is the environmental impact to create all those batteries? Does that cost include converting heating systems to electric? Would better windows have a better ROI?

rsj_hn 5y ago
Better windows certainly have a better ROI, but they do not get you to replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear or solar/wind + battery does. Nuclear fortunately works everywhere and does not require batteries. It does, however, take engineering skill in order to build and operate, whereas a solar panel can be ordered from China rather cheaply. In the future, I guarantee you that China will mass produce small, safe, relatively idiot-proof nuclear plants and export them all over the world in Belt and Road version 2.0. They will bring in an all Chinese labor force to build it and quite possibly also to operate it or at least provide immediate support. Many of the people angry at China for not making meaningful CO2 commitments will praise them for saving the planet. As the West continues to de-skill and dumb down, we may even need them to come to the U.S. and generate reliable power for us.
varelse 5y ago
Funny you should say that. So it turns out providing 40 kWh of battery backup to 128M homes would create about 500M tons of CO2. In comparison, the coal industry annually contributes 1.9B tons of CO2 and spews 120M tons of toxic waste which would be gone if we shut this industry down for the low low price of $12B. Conclusion: there really isn't a good argument against this other than people are being dumb. Or pray tell what that argument is. Also once again I already mentioned nuclear as part of the solution where solar doesn't work. I continue to be confused as to why people keep choosing to ignore that.
- verdverm 5y ago
  One might note that getting solar roof panels can be a pain in certain localities and that insurance companies are dropping people for having large batteries or EVs due to fire risk. You can cherry pick a few numbers, but it does not come close to the full accounting required for a proper analysis. Not saying it's a bad goal to switch over, just that the true costs are not being expressed, and that it's not some simple thing you can just do

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

>It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real The reactions of various pockets of humanity to climate change and COVID gives me the feeling that a study of the psychology of the "acceptance of ideas" is long overdue. I used to be amazed, but not any more. It's predictable, no matter how illogical. Some kind of variation on "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". Bad news will not be accepted, by default, without extraordinary evidence, the messenger will be shot, and the source will be character assassinated. Good news will prevail until the (unexpectedly strong) dam of denial is breached by brutal reality. And it will surprise the masses.

argomo 5y ago

Industry funded propaganda and bought politicians. Then it (in the US) got polarized along partisan lines. Geopolitically, everyone wants to solve it, but nobody wants to take a big hit to their own prospects.