6 ms·

Deceleration isn't really an option. Many developing nations are going to continue to have increasing energy needs. To ask these countries to reduce their energ

by shdh 3y ago

Deceleration isn't really an option. Many developing nations are going to continue to have increasing energy needs. To ask these countries to reduce their energy requirements is to ask their citizens to live a lower standard of life. Hypocritical of those in the West to make that request. The only real solution is to make energy ubiquitous and plentiful. Governments should be investing 100's billions of dollars into fusion tech. I don't think there is any vision or foresight. Ironically, Oppenheimer came out this year highlighting the development of Los Alamos and the impact of federal projects.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
> The only real solution is to make energy ubiquitous and plentiful. Renewables have been the boring, consensus answer to this for about a decade. There's some obscure academic discussions about the exact makeup of the last 15% of energy needs, but most of those options revolve around how to best reuse the massive amounts of nearly free electricity that a sensible overbuild of renewables will create at other times. I know the mainstream media flips between it all being a hoax and us all going to die but I still don't understand how it's possible for so many HN posters to have a worldview that so neatly excludes these world shaking tech developments.
- shdh 3y ago
  Wind, solar, and geo haven't really made up a significant enough portion of overall energy generation. Also they don't seem to be scaling up quickly enough. We're still seeing many coal plants operating and new ones coming online in the West.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    > IEA figures shows that it expects global electricity generation to rise by 2,493TWh between 2022 and 2025. > The IEA expects the growth in renewable generation to cover the vast majority of this total, growing by 2,450TWh. This is equivalent to 98% of the overall increase in global demand.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      https://www.commondreams.org/news/fossil-fuels-global-energy-consumption https://www.commondreams.org/news/fossil-fuels-global-energy... Fossil Fuels Made Up 82% of Global Energy Consumption in 2022: New Data Data published Monday shows that fossil fuels made up 82% of global energy consumption in 2022, another indication that the global transition away from planet-warming sources is moving far too slowly as rich nations continue burning oil, gas, and coal at an unsustainable pace. “Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again," said Davenport. "We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris Agreement."
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        2/3rds of that fossil fuels becomes wasted heat. We only need to replace the third that actually performs useful functions. Even if the plants were cost competitive, which they are not, the existing ones are only built to last 30-50 years which means they'll age out and be replaced by renewables on that timescale at the very worst.
        myshpa 3y ago
        That doesn't consider different energy use cases, existing infrastructure, and increasing global energy demands, which could require more than simply replacing the 'useful' energy currently obtained from fossil fuels. Electricity generation (coal) ... 33-40% efficiency Electricity generation (nat. gas) ... 50-60% Heating (nat. gas.) ... upto 97% Transportation ... 20-30% Industrial ... cement for example at about 50% What am I missing? Got any links or references for "we only need to replace the third"?
        ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        This works through examples with numbers: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method Also note that heat pump based heating can be 5x as efficient as nat gas heating. Which means using gas to generate electricity to run heat pumps is an improvement. edit to add: also note that the oldest, dirtiest and least efficient plants will get shut first, having an outsized impact.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    > they don't seem to be scaling up quickly enough. They're scaling up at a rate of 5% of total electricity production per year. And that rate is increasing by about 1/3 per year. That's insanely quick. https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/climate-change/82/1033617/wind-solar-will-be-25-of-total-u-s-generating-capacity-within-three-years-as-they-grow-by-over-100-gw-.html https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/cli...
- glimshe 3y ago
  The radical insistence on renewables as the ONLY energy source, and the equally radical opposition to Nuclear is part of why we aren't improving fission and researching fusion more, which would get us out of the woods. No compromise is being pursued from the renewables side, while the nuclear side completely agree that renewables will be a major part of our grid.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    The opposition to nuclear fission is no more radical than the "opposition" to Solar CSP, Tidal, Wave, Vertical Axis Wind, Hydrogen cars and heating etc. We tried a few things and figured out what worked best. That sucks if you have a weird emotional attachment to one of those techs that didn't make the cut but that's life.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    There's nothing radical in insisting on using a solution that you have now to a problem you have now. It's called being practical.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Nuclear is simply still too expensive to “overbuild” on, if we got costs down then sure, but we can’t just magic up all the capital needed to build and even maintain the plants, even if they are cheap to fuel. But right now solar, wind, and perhaps more hydro (if we aren’t at our limit yet) make more sense.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
A lot of those folks in the developing world are going to die from the new heat normal, and no one is going to do anything about it. Tragic to be sure. > To ask these countries to reduce their energy requirements is to ask their citizens to live a lower standard of life. Hypocritical of those in the West to make that request. Without a hint of sarcasm or snark, life isn’t fair. We’re on a trajectory of progress (energy transition) and reduction in quality of life (excess heat deaths) for various geographic cohorts, and not much is going to bend either curve. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/devastating-worlds-poor-climate-change-threatens-development-gains-already-achieved https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/devastating-worlds-p...
- shdh 3y ago
  Yeah, that's without question. Overall energy needs will still continue to increase during that time, global population growth will almost certainly continue as well.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Right, you're spot on. We're lucky in that fertility is plummeting across the world [1], which means the population peak won't be too high [2], but we're still going to have to provide for all the people who are going to exist over the course of the next century. The world is rapidly aging [3]; we should build renewables while we still have a young, productive worker cohort [4]. How are people who are going to want or need to migrate, to survive carbon emissions catching up with us, going to? No idea. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ [2] https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time [3] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-... [4] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/electricity-generation-renewables-power-iea/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/electricity-generatio...
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago
      Interesting. I thought "plummeting" deserved correction, but it's me who was wrong: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-births-by-world-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-births-b... It has risen and fallen in the past, but nonetheless it's quite a decline at the moment.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Fusion is a bad answer for the developing world, it leaves them dependent on first world experts. Better to give them solar panels and wind turbines. Even if the third world can't manufacture them they can maintain them themselves.
yongjik 3y ago
> To ask these countries to reduce their energy requirements is to ask their citizens to live a lower standard of life. Hypocritical of those in the West to make that request. That's a weird take. The West has colonized the rest of the world, enslaved people, exported cheap product to decimate local industry (sometimes at gunpoint), extracted resources (frequently with indigenous people working like slaves), propped up dictators, you name it ... (I'm not particularly trying to blame the nebulous "West," as many other countries would have done the same if they had the chance. See what Japan did during WW2.) ... but we draw a line at trying to avert a global climate disaster? Just this year, America was busy making sure China doesn't get the chips they want, by pressuring its own allies into not making more deals with China. And these things are considered completely normal and part of "business as usual" as long as they support the continued hegemony of America. But talk about fending off the existential threat against the human civilization, and people are like "Oh no! Won't anybody think about those poor Indians who need their gas-powered cars!!"
- Gud 3y ago
  No. The _ruling elites_ of the western world conquered much of the world over the last 1000 years, including their (current) European subjects. I refuse to be guilted into thinking I’m somehow a bad man because what someone ultra privileged did, just because of my relative proximity.
  - shdh 3y ago
    You share a larger portion of this percentage of genetic information with some person from centuries ago, who fucking cares. Those people are simply detracting and not helping. I'd just ignore them. The signal to noise ratio of this site has taken a giga nose dive.
- shdh 3y ago
  > but we draw a line at trying to avert a global climate disaster? USA isn't going to invade countries to hinder their development. Neither is China. Energy needs continue to increase.

by shdh 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

> The only real solution is to make energy ubiquitous and plentiful. Renewables have been the boring, consensus answer to this for about a decade. There's some obscure academic discussions about the exact makeup of the last 15% of energy needs, but most of those options revolve around how to best reuse the massive amounts of nearly free electricity that a sensible overbuild of renewables will create at other times. I know the mainstream media flips between it all being a hoax and us all going to die but I still don't understand how it's possible for so many HN posters to have a worldview that so neatly excludes these world shaking tech developments.

shdh 3y ago
Wind, solar, and geo haven't really made up a significant enough portion of overall energy generation. Also they don't seem to be scaling up quickly enough. We're still seeing many coal plants operating and new ones coming online in the West.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  > IEA figures shows that it expects global electricity generation to rise by 2,493TWh between 2022 and 2025. > The IEA expects the growth in renewable generation to cover the vast majority of this total, growing by 2,450TWh. This is equivalent to 98% of the overall increase in global demand.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/fossil-fuels-global-energy-consumption https://www.commondreams.org/news/fossil-fuels-global-energy... Fossil Fuels Made Up 82% of Global Energy Consumption in 2022: New Data Data published Monday shows that fossil fuels made up 82% of global energy consumption in 2022, another indication that the global transition away from planet-warming sources is moving far too slowly as rich nations continue burning oil, gas, and coal at an unsustainable pace. “Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again," said Davenport. "We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris Agreement."
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      2/3rds of that fossil fuels becomes wasted heat. We only need to replace the third that actually performs useful functions. Even if the plants were cost competitive, which they are not, the existing ones are only built to last 30-50 years which means they'll age out and be replaced by renewables on that timescale at the very worst.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        That doesn't consider different energy use cases, existing infrastructure, and increasing global energy demands, which could require more than simply replacing the 'useful' energy currently obtained from fossil fuels. Electricity generation (coal) ... 33-40% efficiency Electricity generation (nat. gas) ... 50-60% Heating (nat. gas.) ... upto 97% Transportation ... 20-30% Industrial ... cement for example at about 50% What am I missing? Got any links or references for "we only need to replace the third"?
        ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        This works through examples with numbers: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method Also note that heat pump based heating can be 5x as efficient as nat gas heating. Which means using gas to generate electricity to run heat pumps is an improvement. edit to add: also note that the oldest, dirtiest and least efficient plants will get shut first, having an outsized impact.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  > they don't seem to be scaling up quickly enough. They're scaling up at a rate of 5% of total electricity production per year. And that rate is increasing by about 1/3 per year. That's insanely quick. https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/climate-change/82/1033617/wind-solar-will-be-25-of-total-u-s-generating-capacity-within-three-years-as-they-grow-by-over-100-gw-.html https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/cli...
glimshe 3y ago
The radical insistence on renewables as the ONLY energy source, and the equally radical opposition to Nuclear is part of why we aren't improving fission and researching fusion more, which would get us out of the woods. No compromise is being pursued from the renewables side, while the nuclear side completely agree that renewables will be a major part of our grid.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  The opposition to nuclear fission is no more radical than the "opposition" to Solar CSP, Tidal, Wave, Vertical Axis Wind, Hydrogen cars and heating etc. We tried a few things and figured out what worked best. That sucks if you have a weird emotional attachment to one of those techs that didn't make the cut but that's life.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  There's nothing radical in insisting on using a solution that you have now to a problem you have now. It's called being practical.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Nuclear is simply still too expensive to “overbuild” on, if we got costs down then sure, but we can’t just magic up all the capital needed to build and even maintain the plants, even if they are cheap to fuel. But right now solar, wind, and perhaps more hydro (if we aren’t at our limit yet) make more sense.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

A lot of those folks in the developing world are going to die from the new heat normal, and no one is going to do anything about it. Tragic to be sure. > To ask these countries to reduce their energy requirements is to ask their citizens to live a lower standard of life. Hypocritical of those in the West to make that request. Without a hint of sarcasm or snark, life isn’t fair. We’re on a trajectory of progress (energy transition) and reduction in quality of life (excess heat deaths) for various geographic cohorts, and not much is going to bend either curve. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/devastating-worlds-poor-climate-change-threatens-development-gains-already-achieved https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/devastating-worlds-p...

shdh 3y ago
Yeah, that's without question. Overall energy needs will still continue to increase during that time, global population growth will almost certainly continue as well.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Right, you're spot on. We're lucky in that fertility is plummeting across the world [1], which means the population peak won't be too high [2], but we're still going to have to provide for all the people who are going to exist over the course of the next century. The world is rapidly aging [3]; we should build renewables while we still have a young, productive worker cohort [4]. How are people who are going to want or need to migrate, to survive carbon emissions catching up with us, going to? No idea. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ [2] https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time [3] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-... [4] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/electricity-generation-renewables-power-iea/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/electricity-generatio...
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    Interesting. I thought "plummeting" deserved correction, but it's me who was wrong: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-births-by-world-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-births-b... It has risen and fallen in the past, but nonetheless it's quite a decline at the moment.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Fusion is a bad answer for the developing world, it leaves them dependent on first world experts. Better to give them solar panels and wind turbines. Even if the third world can't manufacture them they can maintain them themselves.

yongjik 3y ago

> To ask these countries to reduce their energy requirements is to ask their citizens to live a lower standard of life. Hypocritical of those in the West to make that request. That's a weird take. The West has colonized the rest of the world, enslaved people, exported cheap product to decimate local industry (sometimes at gunpoint), extracted resources (frequently with indigenous people working like slaves), propped up dictators, you name it ... (I'm not particularly trying to blame the nebulous "West," as many other countries would have done the same if they had the chance. See what Japan did during WW2.) ... but we draw a line at trying to avert a global climate disaster? Just this year, America was busy making sure China doesn't get the chips they want, by pressuring its own allies into not making more deals with China. And these things are considered completely normal and part of "business as usual" as long as they support the continued hegemony of America. But talk about fending off the existential threat against the human civilization, and people are like "Oh no! Won't anybody think about those poor Indians who need their gas-powered cars!!"

Gud 3y ago
No. The _ruling elites_ of the western world conquered much of the world over the last 1000 years, including their (current) European subjects. I refuse to be guilted into thinking I’m somehow a bad man because what someone ultra privileged did, just because of my relative proximity.
- shdh 3y ago
  You share a larger portion of this percentage of genetic information with some person from centuries ago, who fucking cares. Those people are simply detracting and not helping. I'd just ignore them. The signal to noise ratio of this site has taken a giga nose dive.
shdh 3y ago
> but we draw a line at trying to avert a global climate disaster? USA isn't going to invade countries to hinder their development. Neither is China. Energy needs continue to increase.