4 ms·

It’s Not Climate Change – It’s Everything Change

14 points by ph0rque 11y ago

ph0rque 11y ago
This is another one of those articles that ignores many of the positive developments in progress, unfortunately.
- jbeales 11y ago
  Did you read the whole thing? It took a while, but the last couple paragraphs were spent discussing ways things are getting better.
  - ph0rque 11y ago
    I did. That's my criticism of the article: only a small percentage of the article is spent discussing how we can, and are, improving things. Even then, there's an implied mistrust of those improvements: at one point, renewable energy is put in quotes as though it's not really renewable.
    - jbeales 11y ago
      I guess that's legitimate. Let's turn this into a positive. I would love to hear more about how things are improving. Do you have more examples?
      - ph0rque 11y ago
        Sure! Here are a couple things: * Solar is winning. By 2030, solar electricity might cost as lost as $0.02 - $0.04 per kilowatt hour: several times less expensive than other kinds of electricity. Of course, there will be other costs, but it will still be the cheapest source of electricity for a lot of regions. Source: http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/ http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-... * Well, the what happens when the sun goes down and the wind dies down? You need storage. Good news on that front, too: electric vehicle batteries are getting cheaper much faster than expected: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/electric-vehicle-batteries-are-getting-cheaper-much-faster-than-we-expected/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/electric-vehicle-batt... * The author mentioned about the big animal die-off because wilderness is shrinking. In the US, wilderness is in fact increasing; we don't need as much land for farming as we used to. Source: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-ret...
        jbeales 11y ago
        So I took a look at those. I can't argue with the Ars article on batteries, although I wonder if it's really worth using Li-Ion batteries for homes when lead-acid is super simple, and I think cheap, (I'm not sure if the acid's recyclable, though). The first linked article talks about storage, not generation - is it the correct link? If we can get solar into the $0.02 - $0.04 range we'll have largely won the battle. On shrinking wilderness, I'm not sure about some of the methodology in that paper. For land use in agriculture it seems to have tailored the timescale studied to support the theory that we're using less land for agriculture, but even the selective charts show we're almost at peak corn acreage and headed up-and-to-the-right. The argument about saying cubic yards of wood production per hectare of forest is going up was missing a timescale, and charting wood used per dollar of GDP doesn't really tell us anything about how much wood is actually being used, it just makes a chart that looks like its heading in the right direction. I think the US may be seeing less land under agriculture, but I think a lot more food is being imported from Central & South America, and Asia, areas that were not discussed in relation to area under agriculture. I didn't look up the reputation of thebreakthrough.org, but the paper read somewhat like a "we're doing fine - stop worrying" study influenced by parties that don't want rapid change. There have been some major wins on the wilderness vs. non-wilderness front, though. Many waterways in North America is probably cleaner than it was 30 years ago, (think of the Great Lakes, and around NYC. I'm not sure about the Mississippi, Columbia, or Colorado river systems). Acid rain on the east coast & central Canada has largely been dealt with, and some species are even coming back to places they've been gone from for years, (I caught a salmon on vacation in BC last year for the first time in 20 years).
        ph0rque 11y ago
        Yeah, the first linked article mentions the 2 - 4 cent range in one of the last paragraphs. As far as the batteries go, there's a startup developing saltwater batteries: safe, cheap, and reliable. They're aiming to compete with lead-acid batteries, and are aiming precisely for residential applications (as well as larger-scale ones): http://www.aquionenergy.com/ http://www.aquionenergy.com/
        11y ago
norea-armozel 11y ago
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if we'll ever get over the hump of the looming energy crisis. I'm not for an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, but I honestly don't think there's going to be a solution to the energy crisis that doesn't include some form of nuclear energy production (fission or fusion). For fulfilling high load near instant demand on power only nuclear (and hydroelectric where can you build a dam) seems to compare to oil and coal in that regard. Solar doesn't cut it at least with our battery technology and our climate (some parts of the US only get around 150 sunny days a year like Minnesota). Wind looks to be good for helping with voltage regulation but like solar I bet that in areas like Minnesota it won't work (Kansas? Sure, we get plenty of wind from the north or south depending on the season). And biofuels don't look good to me since it becomes a choice between eating or powering your TV set (eating always wins). So, nuclear will have to be the backbone of a new energy economy if we're to advance the standard of living for developing nations and to maintain the standard of living for the developed nations as is. Anything less than that will probably wind up forcing everyone back down to 19th or 18th century levels of productivity and standards of living.

14 points by ph0rque 11y ago

ph0rque 11y ago

This is another one of those articles that ignores many of the positive developments in progress, unfortunately.

jbeales 11y ago
Did you read the whole thing? It took a while, but the last couple paragraphs were spent discussing ways things are getting better.
- ph0rque 11y ago
  I did. That's my criticism of the article: only a small percentage of the article is spent discussing how we can, and are, improving things. Even then, there's an implied mistrust of those improvements: at one point, renewable energy is put in quotes as though it's not really renewable.
  - jbeales 11y ago
    I guess that's legitimate. Let's turn this into a positive. I would love to hear more about how things are improving. Do you have more examples?
    - ph0rque 11y ago
      Sure! Here are a couple things: * Solar is winning. By 2030, solar electricity might cost as lost as $0.02 - $0.04 per kilowatt hour: several times less expensive than other kinds of electricity. Of course, there will be other costs, but it will still be the cheapest source of electricity for a lot of regions. Source: http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/ http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-... * Well, the what happens when the sun goes down and the wind dies down? You need storage. Good news on that front, too: electric vehicle batteries are getting cheaper much faster than expected: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/electric-vehicle-batteries-are-getting-cheaper-much-faster-than-we-expected/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/electric-vehicle-batt... * The author mentioned about the big animal die-off because wilderness is shrinking. In the US, wilderness is in fact increasing; we don't need as much land for farming as we used to. Source: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-ret...
      - jbeales 11y ago
        So I took a look at those. I can't argue with the Ars article on batteries, although I wonder if it's really worth using Li-Ion batteries for homes when lead-acid is super simple, and I think cheap, (I'm not sure if the acid's recyclable, though). The first linked article talks about storage, not generation - is it the correct link? If we can get solar into the $0.02 - $0.04 range we'll have largely won the battle. On shrinking wilderness, I'm not sure about some of the methodology in that paper. For land use in agriculture it seems to have tailored the timescale studied to support the theory that we're using less land for agriculture, but even the selective charts show we're almost at peak corn acreage and headed up-and-to-the-right. The argument about saying cubic yards of wood production per hectare of forest is going up was missing a timescale, and charting wood used per dollar of GDP doesn't really tell us anything about how much wood is actually being used, it just makes a chart that looks like its heading in the right direction. I think the US may be seeing less land under agriculture, but I think a lot more food is being imported from Central & South America, and Asia, areas that were not discussed in relation to area under agriculture. I didn't look up the reputation of thebreakthrough.org, but the paper read somewhat like a "we're doing fine - stop worrying" study influenced by parties that don't want rapid change. There have been some major wins on the wilderness vs. non-wilderness front, though. Many waterways in North America is probably cleaner than it was 30 years ago, (think of the Great Lakes, and around NYC. I'm not sure about the Mississippi, Columbia, or Colorado river systems). Acid rain on the east coast & central Canada has largely been dealt with, and some species are even coming back to places they've been gone from for years, (I caught a salmon on vacation in BC last year for the first time in 20 years).
        ph0rque 11y ago
        Yeah, the first linked article mentions the 2 - 4 cent range in one of the last paragraphs. As far as the batteries go, there's a startup developing saltwater batteries: safe, cheap, and reliable. They're aiming to compete with lead-acid batteries, and are aiming precisely for residential applications (as well as larger-scale ones): http://www.aquionenergy.com/ http://www.aquionenergy.com/
        11y ago

norea-armozel 11y ago

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if we'll ever get over the hump of the looming energy crisis. I'm not for an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, but I honestly don't think there's going to be a solution to the energy crisis that doesn't include some form of nuclear energy production (fission or fusion). For fulfilling high load near instant demand on power only nuclear (and hydroelectric where can you build a dam) seems to compare to oil and coal in that regard. Solar doesn't cut it at least with our battery technology and our climate (some parts of the US only get around 150 sunny days a year like Minnesota). Wind looks to be good for helping with voltage regulation but like solar I bet that in areas like Minnesota it won't work (Kansas? Sure, we get plenty of wind from the north or south depending on the season). And biofuels don't look good to me since it becomes a choice between eating or powering your TV set (eating always wins). So, nuclear will have to be the backbone of a new energy economy if we're to advance the standard of living for developing nations and to maintain the standard of living for the developed nations as is. Anything less than that will probably wind up forcing everyone back down to 19th or 18th century levels of productivity and standards of living.