4 ms·

> The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed e

> The reason why housing is expensive is the same as what the article said about nitrogen emissions, new housing construction is limited to try and not exceed emissions even more. This is honestly just dumb. Many of the climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy are really really dumb. > As for schiphol airport lines, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but having informed myself a bit on the subject and having been on those queues many times this year, I think it's again a self inflicted problem, as the government wants to have less flights overall, and I believe they found a reasonable escape goat for it with the "staff shortages". But why? Is it also to reduce emissions? They don't want to actually do something meaningful, so they cause havoc in the Airport to reduce emissions? What is going on?

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
> climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy It's not a climate action. It's an environmental action, which there's an overlap with, but which is not the same thing.
- jacooper 4y ago
  What's the difference?
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    Climate is basically long-term weather. "Nitrogen" doesn't affect the temperature or rain or clouds, so it isn't climate. FYI when they say nitrogen they don't mean it literally – it's a code-word for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (HN3).
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    Different set of utopian authoritarians forcing people to act against their own interests.
  - more_corn 4y ago
    Nuclear energy is actually good for reducing climate change. It’s environmentally undesirable because of the failure mode, the difficulty of cleanup, the fact that the waste is basically forever and we have no real plan for storing or processing it.
    - hakfoo 4y ago
      At this point, I have to wonder how inherent those problems are to nuclear and more to the specific designs that were built over the years, in part due to various military priorities. The right time to develop a different nuclear platform was 40 years ago, but the second rightest time is today. Where is the bold, government-level messaging and big research grants saying "here's a completely new architecture, it's simply not capable of the same failure modes as Fukushima or Three Mile Island." I guess that's why people were boosting Thorium a while back, but I haven't heard much news there. Seemed like microreactors was the latest sexy thing.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        It's this. If we got one of the molten salt reactor ideas functional it would be a total game changer for the economics of electrictity and the environment because they are not giant pipe bombs waiting to explode and their safety systems are extremely simple while being difficult to screw up (most spec a fan powered by the reactor blowing on a tube causing a solid plug. Reactor goes into failure mode and fan turns off, plug melts and everything flow into a second chamber designed to absorb all the neutrons and shut the reaction down. You end up with a mildly radioactive slab of rock that you can recycle in another running reactor. Also, since everything is liquid it makes continuous cycling and cleaning reaction products out much easier.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There have been hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars spent on various efforts at breeder reactors over the years. Most of them catch fire every month or dissolve themselves from the inside after a year. Turns out the idea probably needs materials that don't exist yet (but might soon?). The Russian BN 800 is the closest if you believe their government, and the chinese LFTR project has some promise. Even with the basic possibility issues solved there are a bunch of economic, resource and political issues to work through after that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Zeebrommer 4y ago
> This is honestly just dumb Yes, but in an indirect way. At some point, nitrogen deposition was identified as harmful to nature, and emissions targets were put in place. Politicians then did everything they could not to be the one having to introduce unpopular legislation, until they couldn't anymore. Now the government has painted themselves in a corner and cannot give permits for building projects anymore without breaking the law. I think we'll see this more often in the future when the consequences of ambitious targets will need to be reckoned with.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  And yet, these "ambitious targets" as you characterize them, are insufficient. I don't even need to know the target or the efficacy. The static political situation and power structures versus the actuals of three decades of climate science have not significantly changed. The only improvements have been solar/wind/battery changing the efficiency and emissions game, but REDUCTIONS are still effectively nothing. All "emissions targets" are "compromises" between political ignorance/denialism and reality. Everywhere. Until the rich realize they are directly affected (not their children, the elite care nothing for their children), real policy won't emerge.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  I suspect it might also be trying to avoid targeting the base. If you can fit your compliance push into something that seems minor and distant for most voters, it's probably less politically toxic than going for the direct problem that might be controversial. "We need to scrap gas guzzlers" is a direct attack on your voters, but "We might not be able to issue construction permits in 2025" is distant and doesn't necessarily affect anyone you know personally. It probably comes from the same mindset that says "let's pay for a lot of (programme) with a high surtax on hotel rooms because that pretty much only impacts external tourists who aren't going to vote us out over it."
- fmajid 4y ago
  I suspect nitrogen remediation with carbon capture using fast-growing plants like bamboo might be part of the solution. One thing eludes me, though: the Netherlands' highly productive agricultural exports are mostly due to growing vegetables like tomatoes in greenhouses, where th effluent can be controlled. Nitrogen pollution is typically more the result of large-scale livestock or pig farming. The sector actually impacted by the restrictions might not be the most productive one.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

> climate actions taken in European countries like stopping nuclear energy It's not a climate action. It's an environmental action, which there's an overlap with, but which is not the same thing.

jacooper 4y ago
What's the difference?
- akvadrako 4y ago
  Climate is basically long-term weather. "Nitrogen" doesn't affect the temperature or rain or clouds, so it isn't climate. FYI when they say nitrogen they don't mean it literally – it's a code-word for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (HN3).
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  Different set of utopian authoritarians forcing people to act against their own interests.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Nuclear energy is actually good for reducing climate change. It’s environmentally undesirable because of the failure mode, the difficulty of cleanup, the fact that the waste is basically forever and we have no real plan for storing or processing it.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    At this point, I have to wonder how inherent those problems are to nuclear and more to the specific designs that were built over the years, in part due to various military priorities. The right time to develop a different nuclear platform was 40 years ago, but the second rightest time is today. Where is the bold, government-level messaging and big research grants saying "here's a completely new architecture, it's simply not capable of the same failure modes as Fukushima or Three Mile Island." I guess that's why people were boosting Thorium a while back, but I haven't heard much news there. Seemed like microreactors was the latest sexy thing.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      It's this. If we got one of the molten salt reactor ideas functional it would be a total game changer for the economics of electrictity and the environment because they are not giant pipe bombs waiting to explode and their safety systems are extremely simple while being difficult to screw up (most spec a fan powered by the reactor blowing on a tube causing a solid plug. Reactor goes into failure mode and fan turns off, plug melts and everything flow into a second chamber designed to absorb all the neutrons and shut the reaction down. You end up with a mildly radioactive slab of rock that you can recycle in another running reactor. Also, since everything is liquid it makes continuous cycling and cleaning reaction products out much easier.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      There have been hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars spent on various efforts at breeder reactors over the years. Most of them catch fire every month or dissolve themselves from the inside after a year. Turns out the idea probably needs materials that don't exist yet (but might soon?). The Russian BN 800 is the closest if you believe their government, and the chinese LFTR project has some promise. Even with the basic possibility issues solved there are a bunch of economic, resource and political issues to work through after that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Zeebrommer 4y ago

> This is honestly just dumb Yes, but in an indirect way. At some point, nitrogen deposition was identified as harmful to nature, and emissions targets were put in place. Politicians then did everything they could not to be the one having to introduce unpopular legislation, until they couldn't anymore. Now the government has painted themselves in a corner and cannot give permits for building projects anymore without breaking the law. I think we'll see this more often in the future when the consequences of ambitious targets will need to be reckoned with.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
And yet, these "ambitious targets" as you characterize them, are insufficient. I don't even need to know the target or the efficacy. The static political situation and power structures versus the actuals of three decades of climate science have not significantly changed. The only improvements have been solar/wind/battery changing the efficiency and emissions game, but REDUCTIONS are still effectively nothing. All "emissions targets" are "compromises" between political ignorance/denialism and reality. Everywhere. Until the rich realize they are directly affected (not their children, the elite care nothing for their children), real policy won't emerge.
hakfoo 4y ago
I suspect it might also be trying to avoid targeting the base. If you can fit your compliance push into something that seems minor and distant for most voters, it's probably less politically toxic than going for the direct problem that might be controversial. "We need to scrap gas guzzlers" is a direct attack on your voters, but "We might not be able to issue construction permits in 2025" is distant and doesn't necessarily affect anyone you know personally. It probably comes from the same mindset that says "let's pay for a lot of (programme) with a high surtax on hotel rooms because that pretty much only impacts external tourists who aren't going to vote us out over it."
fmajid 4y ago
I suspect nitrogen remediation with carbon capture using fast-growing plants like bamboo might be part of the solution. One thing eludes me, though: the Netherlands' highly productive agricultural exports are mostly due to growing vegetables like tomatoes in greenhouses, where th effluent can be controlled. Nitrogen pollution is typically more the result of large-scale livestock or pig farming. The sector actually impacted by the restrictions might not be the most productive one.