4 ms·

Dialling back modern lifestyles to a point where reading HN is no longer plausible or possible may be required. Certainly production of cement for concrete, and

Dialling back modern lifestyles to a point where reading HN is no longer plausible or possible may be required. Certainly production of cement for concrete, and of fertilizer, will need to be ratcheted down. Who’s going to volunteer to collect all the urine that can replace some of that fertilizer? A lot of infrastructure construction and maintenance will disappear, because metal smelting and other coal-consuming processes will need to go away. Put up with less or no AC, don’t look for Amazon to deliver tiny packages, eat seasonal food or go without, lots of changes. Hate to say it, it’s too late for us and our children. Maybe our great-grandchildren can at least not be as badly impacted.

triceratops 5y ago
> Certainly production of cement for concrete, and of fertilizer, will need to be ratcheted down. Is there a reason these can't be done with wind or solar power? 40% of the emissions in concrete are from burning fuel [1]. For fertilizer production, the main inputs deriving from fossil fuels are energy, and hydrogen [2]. Wind and solar can produce plenty of both. > metal smelting Again, why can't you use wind or solar energy for this? Iceland is a major aluminum exporter because geothermal power is so cheap there. > Put up with less or no AC, don’t look for Amazon to deliver tiny packages, eat seasonal food or go without These don't sound like terrible changes for much of the Western world. Large parts of Europe already don't have AC. Seasonal food was the norm even in the US until at least the 1960s. We've had barely 10 years of Amazon's 2-day shipping. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre... 2. https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a...
- quantified 5y ago
  You seem to be suggesting that the economic system of adding more people and more consumption should be the path out of this. I’m not at all convinced. I’m not such a Malthusian to suggest that we can’t carry more people or more activity into some of the future, but I don’t see humanity as a low-trust squabbling whole following any local example of a high-trust, wealthy Nordic. You’ve noticed that 50% or so of cement CO2 is from the chemistry itself. That becomes 2.5-4% of global emissions right there. Plus the rape of sand from beaches here and there, better it does dial way back. Funny solar does provide cracking of atmospheric nitrogen. Happens inside plants, no less. When and where will all this solar and wind come on line? Anywhere near enough to where power is used? Texas or the UAE, where they blast AC in the open air? How can anyone roll coal from an electric pickup? Culturally, the US won’t adapt quickly enough, coastal elites with waterfront property are the ones worried about oceans rising. Go inland 100 miles and having feeling respected is much more important. That’s feelings, but we’re talking humans here. I’m surprised we’re not talking about nuclear in the form of thorium reactors as well, though personally I think there’s no way humanity uses nuclear in a more substantial way for 100 years without substantially screwing something up. But electrifying all the things means mining and distributing and recycling all the lithium as well.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > You seem to be suggesting that the economic system of adding more people and more consumption should be the path out of this. Not really, no. Electrifying everything will be expensive and make things expensive. Consumption will reduce naturally as a result. > Texas or the UAE, where they blast AC in the open air? They're both excellent places for solar and wind, so why not? > How can anyone roll coal from an electric pickup? Tax the s** out of ICE vehicles. I have an ICE vehicle myself, so I'm not speaking casually. > Culturally, the US won’t adapt quickly enough, And yet you're suggesting that we can somehow "ratchet down the use of cement and fertilizer"? The solutions I'm proposing are all technical and more tractable than changing the culture of a nation.

triceratops 5y ago

> Certainly production of cement for concrete, and of fertilizer, will need to be ratcheted down. Is there a reason these can't be done with wind or solar power? 40% of the emissions in concrete are from burning fuel [1]. For fertilizer production, the main inputs deriving from fossil fuels are energy, and hydrogen [2]. Wind and solar can produce plenty of both. > metal smelting Again, why can't you use wind or solar energy for this? Iceland is a major aluminum exporter because geothermal power is so cheap there. > Put up with less or no AC, don’t look for Amazon to deliver tiny packages, eat seasonal food or go without These don't sound like terrible changes for much of the Western world. Large parts of Europe already don't have AC. Seasonal food was the norm even in the US until at least the 1960s. We've had barely 10 years of Amazon's 2-day shipping. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre... 2. https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a...

quantified 5y ago
You seem to be suggesting that the economic system of adding more people and more consumption should be the path out of this. I’m not at all convinced. I’m not such a Malthusian to suggest that we can’t carry more people or more activity into some of the future, but I don’t see humanity as a low-trust squabbling whole following any local example of a high-trust, wealthy Nordic. You’ve noticed that 50% or so of cement CO2 is from the chemistry itself. That becomes 2.5-4% of global emissions right there. Plus the rape of sand from beaches here and there, better it does dial way back. Funny solar does provide cracking of atmospheric nitrogen. Happens inside plants, no less. When and where will all this solar and wind come on line? Anywhere near enough to where power is used? Texas or the UAE, where they blast AC in the open air? How can anyone roll coal from an electric pickup? Culturally, the US won’t adapt quickly enough, coastal elites with waterfront property are the ones worried about oceans rising. Go inland 100 miles and having feeling respected is much more important. That’s feelings, but we’re talking humans here. I’m surprised we’re not talking about nuclear in the form of thorium reactors as well, though personally I think there’s no way humanity uses nuclear in a more substantial way for 100 years without substantially screwing something up. But electrifying all the things means mining and distributing and recycling all the lithium as well.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > You seem to be suggesting that the economic system of adding more people and more consumption should be the path out of this. Not really, no. Electrifying everything will be expensive and make things expensive. Consumption will reduce naturally as a result. > Texas or the UAE, where they blast AC in the open air? They're both excellent places for solar and wind, so why not? > How can anyone roll coal from an electric pickup? Tax the s** out of ICE vehicles. I have an ICE vehicle myself, so I'm not speaking casually. > Culturally, the US won’t adapt quickly enough, And yet you're suggesting that we can somehow "ratchet down the use of cement and fertilizer"? The solutions I'm proposing are all technical and more tractable than changing the culture of a nation.