3 ms·

Well, I have a PhD in physics, and I think this is a good decision (not that I could ban it if I thought otherwise). Practically all serious decarbonization pl

by jabl 5y ago

Well, I have a PhD in physics, and I think this is a good decision (not that I could ban it if I thought otherwise). Practically all serious decarbonization plans revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production, and then using that clean electricity to decarbonize transportation, heating, some industrial processes etc. Cleaning up the electrical grid is underway. Much too slowly, and with some extremely regrettable setbacks like shutting down functioning nuclear power plants, but still progressing. A major problem in this transition is that retrofitting existing infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming, particularly if it means replacing stuff before EoL. The least we can do is not building more of the wrong kind of infrastructure, which is exactly what this ban achieves.

systemvoltage 5y ago
OP’s point is about costs and affordability. PhD in physics is kind of irrelevant here.
foxhill 5y ago
changes at the individual’s level like this are meaningless on the scale at which carbon emission is occurring. for example, you could switch off every car, truck, boat, plane, train, ambulance, motorbike, etc. and you would reduce carbon emissions by less than 20%. _all_ residential usage (including electricity created by fossil fuels) by 10%. [1] alternatively, you could switch off carbon production across all of the EU and the US. all of it. you’d cut global CO2 emissions by %15 (for the US) and ~9%. [2] climate change is real and man-made. we need to tackle the actual causes of it, rather than make individuals lives harder: i’ve used many induction/electric cookers and they all _suck_. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
aristofun 5y ago
Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called clean sources are not even close in energy density, let alone energy production and delivery costs, to traditional sources. The difference is so dramatical, it would basically mean - we should go to stone age economically speaking to allow full replacement of energy to “green” ones. Which means basically we’re shooting in our own legs! Because weaker economies and poorer people are tend to make ecological situation worse rather than better in all Yes, there are some countries so rich and developed (or with unique weather conditions), they can afford partial replacement, just for the sake of the ecology. But I doubt US has already solved all major problems to afford such an expensive move. This is for starter: https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK... Please stop spreading such a nonsense and consider all implications if you call yourself a PhD In particular: > revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production In general, this scaling is in 2021 near impossible or extremely costly at best, from pure thermodynamical point of view

by jabl 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

OP’s point is about costs and affordability. PhD in physics is kind of irrelevant here.

foxhill 5y ago

changes at the individual’s level like this are meaningless on the scale at which carbon emission is occurring. for example, you could switch off every car, truck, boat, plane, train, ambulance, motorbike, etc. and you would reduce carbon emissions by less than 20%. _all_ residential usage (including electricity created by fossil fuels) by 10%. [1] alternatively, you could switch off carbon production across all of the EU and the US. all of it. you’d cut global CO2 emissions by %15 (for the US) and ~9%. [2] climate change is real and man-made. we need to tackle the actual causes of it, rather than make individuals lives harder: i’ve used many induction/electric cookers and they all _suck_. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

aristofun 5y ago

Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called clean sources are not even close in energy density, let alone energy production and delivery costs, to traditional sources. The difference is so dramatical, it would basically mean - we should go to stone age economically speaking to allow full replacement of energy to “green” ones. Which means basically we’re shooting in our own legs! Because weaker economies and poorer people are tend to make ecological situation worse rather than better in all Yes, there are some countries so rich and developed (or with unique weather conditions), they can afford partial replacement, just for the sake of the ecology. But I doubt US has already solved all major problems to afford such an expensive move. This is for starter: https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK... Please stop spreading such a nonsense and consider all implications if you call yourself a PhD In particular: > revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production In general, this scaling is in 2021 near impossible or extremely costly at best, from pure thermodynamical point of view