5 ms·

In order to avert catastrophe we need to expend energy to actively fight global warming. Things like carbon capture. There is also the ongoing switch to vehicl

In order to avert catastrophe we need to expend energy to actively fight global warming. Things like carbon capture. There is also the ongoing switch to vehicle electrification. There is massive need for multiplying our current baseline energy generation.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
That first part is not true. What we need is not carbon capture, but to stop burning fossil fuels. We can worry about bailing the boat after we patch the massive holes. Until then, and likely even then, carbon capture (especially direct air capture) remains “Chevron’s fig leaf” [0]. I.e., a blatant predatory delay strategy by the fossil fuel industry. [0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/12/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-1-carbon-engineering-burns-natural-gas-to-capture-carbon-from-the-air/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/12/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-...
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  That first part is not true. What we need is not carbon capture, but to stop burning fossil fuels. A large number of people will die if you force this to happen without providing an adequate substitute.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    There’s a few things worth saying. The first is that plenty of people will die and will be displaced by climate change because the world, especially the developed world, has dragged their heels and not acted in earnest for decades. Those alternatives do exist. The levelized cost of energy for renewables (especially solar) has seen a dramatic drop over the past 2 decades, and is continuing to drop. As it stands, they are already equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels. And this is before we start pytting a price on carbon that’s commensurate with the externalities it produces. The same is true for energy return on investment [0]. As for carbon capture. It is an incredibly expensive process, both energy and money wise. Implementing it on a fossil fuel plant would dramatically raise the price of the electricity it generates. Direct air capture is even more expensive. And like I said, carbon capture is extremely energy intensive. If you want that carbon capture to really do much (other than predatory delay) it needs to be powered by new renewables. We’ll you’re better off just hooking those renewables to the grid and displacing the fossil fuel plants. [0]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > As it stands, they are already equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels. If they were actually cheaper, there wouldn't be any need to ban fossil fuels. Everyone would switch on their own accord.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m arguing for their ban. What I’m arguing for is that we stop treating the atmosphere as a public sewer and put a durable price on carbon (one that’s reflective of the externalities it creates).
        lazide 3y ago
        You didn’t address the point that your claim they are actually cheaper doesn’t seem to make any sense.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        See for example page 5 for a comparison of LCOE [0]. For the issue of intermittency see page 11. Even after firming for intermittency (and without subsidizes or a price on carbon) solar and wind are cheaper than gas peaking plants, very competitive with coal, and competitive/more expensive than combined cycle gas. If you put a price on carbon (I.e. stop treating the atmosphere as a free sewer) the renewables become even cheaper. This analysis considers a carbon price of 20-40USD/tonne CO2. (It’s unclear if they only consider that price on literally CO2 or on CO2e.) but that hypothetical 20-40$ is lower compared to what currently Canada is doing (48$ USD) and a lot lower than were the Canadian number is going (~112 USD). It’s somewhere in the middle for the Europe since there is a huge spread in price [1]. [0]: https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april... [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/carbon-taxes-in-europe-2023/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/carbon-taxes-in-europe...
        3y ago
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > A large number of people will die if you force this to happen without providing an adequate substitute. We have adequate substitutes. Replace base load with nuclear. Electrify transportation and charge the batteries with renewable generation. The true barriers are political. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want to be replaced with nuclear and renewables. The auto industry (which makes a large proportion of profits from maintenance) doesn't like simpler vehicles that need less maintenance. So they dig in their heels and put regulatory barriers in front of the alternatives. But it's past time for them to lose.
- warcher 3y ago
  Yeah this is that thing you’re talking about. This is us stopping burning fossil fuels for energy. We can talk about everybody just riding their bike, which I agree would be better for all involved, but so far the data coming back from that experiment has been absolutely dismal. At this point I think ignoring peoples reluctance to bear any inconvenience, and the consequences that has on policy in a democratic society, is dangerously negligent if you take the climate crisis seriously. The data is emphatic and unambiguous. We could do more, but we refuse to, and the steps we could take to force the issue would be catastrophic and extremely risky. War is not carbon neutral, and victory is far from assured. Building some nuclear power plants is arguably the least bad option. I don’t expect that medicine to taste good going down but I, as well as a great many around here, am in the solutions business. And this will take a bunch of coal plants offline in a fashion that we could get people to choke down.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    While I agree with some of the points you make, I genuinely don’t see how your comment relates to mine.
    - warcher 3y ago
      You were insisting that we stop burning fossil fuels, withijt a suggestion on how to replace the base load. The base load must be replaced. I inferred you didn’t like nuclear power because most folks who are focused on climate do not. EVs and nuclear power plants aren’t a panacea but they can make a dent, a big one, they’re politically possible, and we can start today.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Yes I can see how you would draw those conclusion. I would start by saying that a) I don’t have an ideological problem with nuclear, I have an economic one. While wind, solar, and hydro (and the rest) have been getting cheaper (sometimes drastically so, as in the case of solar) year over year, nuclear has only been getting more expensive. The longer we run the plants, the more problems we learn about and the higher the cost becomes. And no, I don’t think the SMNR will solve that, if anything I think they will be even more expensive ($/MWh) because they lose the economies of scale within the plant. It’s argued that you’ll get that price down since they can be mass produced and modular, but the 400MW scale currently being made are neither small nor mass produced. Building enough of them to actually take advantage of learning rate effects is a dubious proposition, especially with the market fragmented behind dozens of designs. Whether nuclear retains a spot for itself remains to be seen and will be dictated (I believe) primary by the cost being brought down faster than the alternatives. And that alternative (point b) is the modernization of the electrical grid (something that we need to do regardless of the path forward) to create larger electrical grids. The intermittency problem is lessened when large geographical areas share their generation capacity. Similarly with storage (hydro one solution that already exists).
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  If we suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels, billions of people would likely die. Billions. That seems like a pretty "massive hole" to me.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Then it’s a good thing I didn’t say suddenly. What we do need to suddenly do however is act like we care, not just pay lip service to solving the problem.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > We can’t wait for 14 years to remove fossil fuels off the grid, to say nothing of growing demand. We need to build something that will produce green electricity next year. "Next year" looks a lot like "suddenly" to me.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I ask you to reread that sentence and try a non-inflammatory read. I am discussing the building of new electricity production, not the forceful removal of fossil fuel production. You don’t need to ban coal burning, you simply have to make them pay for the externalities they create. Gas power plants replace coal ones for the simplyfact that they’re cheaper. Unless we actively subsidize coal, they aren’t cost competitive and will fail on their own.
CapstanRoller 3y ago
There is a massive need for degrowth. Carbon capture is a scam — the thermodynamics just don't make sense. It's far easier to not pollute the first place than to pollute and then expend even more energy trying to undo the damage. The answer is less, not more: compact housing, compact communities, compact cities, efficient transit, etc. The way we have built the world relies on assumptions about limitless resources, and in order to get through this problem we need to fundamentally reconsider how we approach using resources. What can be done today: - zoning reform (in the USA especially) - investment in small dense housing - investment in transit What isn't going to help: - Business As Usual (BAU) But "Green" - Dumping more energy into the system Nuclear reactors can be great, but they do not resolve the civilization-level energy waste problem.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

That first part is not true. What we need is not carbon capture, but to stop burning fossil fuels. We can worry about bailing the boat after we patch the massive holes. Until then, and likely even then, carbon capture (especially direct air capture) remains “Chevron’s fig leaf” [0]. I.e., a blatant predatory delay strategy by the fossil fuel industry. [0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/12/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-1-carbon-engineering-burns-natural-gas-to-capture-carbon-from-the-air/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/12/chevrons-fig-leaf-part-...

CamperBob2 3y ago
That first part is not true. What we need is not carbon capture, but to stop burning fossil fuels. A large number of people will die if you force this to happen without providing an adequate substitute.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  There’s a few things worth saying. The first is that plenty of people will die and will be displaced by climate change because the world, especially the developed world, has dragged their heels and not acted in earnest for decades. Those alternatives do exist. The levelized cost of energy for renewables (especially solar) has seen a dramatic drop over the past 2 decades, and is continuing to drop. As it stands, they are already equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels. And this is before we start pytting a price on carbon that’s commensurate with the externalities it produces. The same is true for energy return on investment [0]. As for carbon capture. It is an incredibly expensive process, both energy and money wise. Implementing it on a fossil fuel plant would dramatically raise the price of the electricity it generates. Direct air capture is even more expensive. And like I said, carbon capture is extremely energy intensive. If you want that carbon capture to really do much (other than predatory delay) it needs to be powered by new renewables. We’ll you’re better off just hooking those renewables to the grid and displacing the fossil fuel plants. [0]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > As it stands, they are already equal to or cheaper than fossil fuels. If they were actually cheaper, there wouldn't be any need to ban fossil fuels. Everyone would switch on their own accord.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m arguing for their ban. What I’m arguing for is that we stop treating the atmosphere as a public sewer and put a durable price on carbon (one that’s reflective of the externalities it creates).
      - lazide 3y ago
        You didn’t address the point that your claim they are actually cheaper doesn’t seem to make any sense.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        See for example page 5 for a comparison of LCOE [0]. For the issue of intermittency see page 11. Even after firming for intermittency (and without subsidizes or a price on carbon) solar and wind are cheaper than gas peaking plants, very competitive with coal, and competitive/more expensive than combined cycle gas. If you put a price on carbon (I.e. stop treating the atmosphere as a free sewer) the renewables become even cheaper. This analysis considers a carbon price of 20-40USD/tonne CO2. (It’s unclear if they only consider that price on literally CO2 or on CO2e.) but that hypothetical 20-40$ is lower compared to what currently Canada is doing (48$ USD) and a lot lower than were the Canadian number is going (~112 USD). It’s somewhere in the middle for the Europe since there is a huge spread in price [1]. [0]: https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april... [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/carbon-taxes-in-europe-2023/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/carbon-taxes-in-europe...
        3y ago
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > A large number of people will die if you force this to happen without providing an adequate substitute. We have adequate substitutes. Replace base load with nuclear. Electrify transportation and charge the batteries with renewable generation. The true barriers are political. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want to be replaced with nuclear and renewables. The auto industry (which makes a large proportion of profits from maintenance) doesn't like simpler vehicles that need less maintenance. So they dig in their heels and put regulatory barriers in front of the alternatives. But it's past time for them to lose.
warcher 3y ago
Yeah this is that thing you’re talking about. This is us stopping burning fossil fuels for energy. We can talk about everybody just riding their bike, which I agree would be better for all involved, but so far the data coming back from that experiment has been absolutely dismal. At this point I think ignoring peoples reluctance to bear any inconvenience, and the consequences that has on policy in a democratic society, is dangerously negligent if you take the climate crisis seriously. The data is emphatic and unambiguous. We could do more, but we refuse to, and the steps we could take to force the issue would be catastrophic and extremely risky. War is not carbon neutral, and victory is far from assured. Building some nuclear power plants is arguably the least bad option. I don’t expect that medicine to taste good going down but I, as well as a great many around here, am in the solutions business. And this will take a bunch of coal plants offline in a fashion that we could get people to choke down.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  While I agree with some of the points you make, I genuinely don’t see how your comment relates to mine.
  - warcher 3y ago
    You were insisting that we stop burning fossil fuels, withijt a suggestion on how to replace the base load. The base load must be replaced. I inferred you didn’t like nuclear power because most folks who are focused on climate do not. EVs and nuclear power plants aren’t a panacea but they can make a dent, a big one, they’re politically possible, and we can start today.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      Yes I can see how you would draw those conclusion. I would start by saying that a) I don’t have an ideological problem with nuclear, I have an economic one. While wind, solar, and hydro (and the rest) have been getting cheaper (sometimes drastically so, as in the case of solar) year over year, nuclear has only been getting more expensive. The longer we run the plants, the more problems we learn about and the higher the cost becomes. And no, I don’t think the SMNR will solve that, if anything I think they will be even more expensive ($/MWh) because they lose the economies of scale within the plant. It’s argued that you’ll get that price down since they can be mass produced and modular, but the 400MW scale currently being made are neither small nor mass produced. Building enough of them to actually take advantage of learning rate effects is a dubious proposition, especially with the market fragmented behind dozens of designs. Whether nuclear retains a spot for itself remains to be seen and will be dictated (I believe) primary by the cost being brought down faster than the alternatives. And that alternative (point b) is the modernization of the electrical grid (something that we need to do regardless of the path forward) to create larger electrical grids. The intermittency problem is lessened when large geographical areas share their generation capacity. Similarly with storage (hydro one solution that already exists).
Turing_Machine 3y ago
If we suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels, billions of people would likely die. Billions. That seems like a pretty "massive hole" to me.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Then it’s a good thing I didn’t say suddenly. What we do need to suddenly do however is act like we care, not just pay lip service to solving the problem.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > We can’t wait for 14 years to remove fossil fuels off the grid, to say nothing of growing demand. We need to build something that will produce green electricity next year. "Next year" looks a lot like "suddenly" to me.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I ask you to reread that sentence and try a non-inflammatory read. I am discussing the building of new electricity production, not the forceful removal of fossil fuel production. You don’t need to ban coal burning, you simply have to make them pay for the externalities they create. Gas power plants replace coal ones for the simplyfact that they’re cheaper. Unless we actively subsidize coal, they aren’t cost competitive and will fail on their own.

CapstanRoller 3y ago

There is a massive need for degrowth. Carbon capture is a scam — the thermodynamics just don't make sense. It's far easier to not pollute the first place than to pollute and then expend even more energy trying to undo the damage. The answer is less, not more: compact housing, compact communities, compact cities, efficient transit, etc. The way we have built the world relies on assumptions about limitless resources, and in order to get through this problem we need to fundamentally reconsider how we approach using resources. What can be done today: - zoning reform (in the USA especially) - investment in small dense housing - investment in transit What isn't going to help: - Business As Usual (BAU) But "Green" - Dumping more energy into the system Nuclear reactors can be great, but they do not resolve the civilization-level energy waste problem.