> "Failure to accelerate progress now," the IEA report said, "risks pushing the transition to net-zero emissions further into the future."
And pushing the transition into the future is a problem, because...? I begin to take issue with this kind of language. It does not say much to a casual reader. I believe the time for this overly polite, overly cautious language is over. How about
"Failure to accelerate progress now risks to end human civilisation as we know it."
Completely agree. It's time to stop coddling the public about the potential risks that will come from bad policy today.
For a second there I thought you were going to argue that it's okay to push the transition further into the future. I was relieved to be wrong about that.
The idea that we can accelerate progress without having any realistic prospect of magical future technologies to produce power is part of the problem.
The most likely way to meet targets is in reduction of energy consumption. That is the one thing that this current economic system is not set up to do.
Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless.
The simple list is well-known, but apparently taboo due to cultural fixations in the West against centralized planning:
automobile abuse; aeroplane abuse; irrational distribution of workers geographically from their workplaces; over-consumption of meat and dairy; poorly insulated housing; overpopulation(1)
1. Please do not bother re-iterating tired arguments about racism for this last point -- it is blindingly obvious that the elevation of consumptions patterns in the rest of the world to those in the West is a non-starter if we want to fix this problem. Just because some racists are delighted at the idea because they imagine population reduction does not involve Western countries does not mean that racist motives are the only impetus here. Similarly the consequence of not fixing this problem are predicted by many to have exaggerated effects on the very areas you are concerned with.
> Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless.
I don’t think this is what is needed. We know the solutions - we just need to institute them. Nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc. Massive incentives to transition to EVs, solar mandated on every new house and incentives for retrofits, etc etc. We need a coordinated plan to attack this the same way we have worldwide (ex-USA) attacked Covid19.
I know we are not supposed to comment on voting here, but I would appeal to whoever is voting this response down to please consider making a reasoned rebuttal of it instead. Down-voting is supposed to be for something that is just complete noise. This comment is just a disagreement with my post. Hardly grounds for voting it down.
I disagree with the post because although I am in favour of all the initiatives suggested in it I suspect they are insufficient in the face of an economic system which is designed to keep expanding and growing.
In addition:
Nuclear power carries huge risks with it (which may become proportionally preferrable to climate destruction)
Solar is useful only for some parts of the world.
We lose massive amounts of energy in transmission from generation to consumption.
Storage is still a huge problem.
All of the above suggests that unless some realistic solutions for storage and transmission are on the table we need to shift manufacturing and consumption closer to the energy sources. Historically civilizations have clustered around such energy centers.
The small (but real) gains available from meat-consumption reduction and gasoline-consumption reduction start to look significant.
I completely agree that is doable, and indeed profitable for many of us, but it is only a partial solution.
That same report says:
a 90 percent carbon-free electric generation sector by 2035, which would reduce economy-wide emissions 27 percent.
Yet the IPCC targets are 43% globally by 2050, unless we believe that there is going to be some currently non-existent technology introduced then something needs to be done to close that gap...reduction seems obvious:
Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
IIRC he was reviewing some paper a while back about the disappearing arctic ice that wasn’t included in the IPCC models. Basically claiming that the target dates they mention should in fact come a few decades earlier.
So if things need to happen by 2050, it could be more like by 2035
We don't need more innovation. It can be solved in a day if green activists stop protesting nuclear. These pseudo environmentalist are more unscientific than flat earthers.
What does HN think who is financing this anti nuclear and pro solar movement.
I think co2 should have a cost associated with it and whatever technology is best in a given situation will be used. I have nothing against nuclear, but it isn't a silver bullet. Mandating nuclear is likely just as bad a move as mandating solar.
I've also seen anti-nuclear activists pondering who paid off pro-nuckear climate activists. There are likely very few people being paid off on either side. It's silly to me the bad faith both sides have. People can think differently without being sold out.
(2) How quickly can nuclear reactors and associated transmission lines be built, and at what cost?
My understanding is we’ve reached the point where solar and wind are quite cheap (cheaper than nuclear) and rapidly getting cheaper. We still need to solve the storage issue, but things on that front are progressing quickly.
I am certainly in favor of nuclear power where it makes sense, but again as I understand it the situations where nuclear is more economical are rapidly decreasing. Perhaps it’s better for society to “skate to where the puck is going?”
Yes nuclear is expensive at the moment but we are hardly building any new reactors. Lets say that society could research and engineer a mass producable reactor type safe enough to be politically viable and set the goal to replace fossil fuels as fast as possible. What would the cost be then?
I know this is a common refrain, but it’s not based in actual science. Check out MIT’s EN-ROADS project [1] and see what a tiny difference full nuclear funding actually makes.
Aside: accusing people of being unscientific while proposing a very complicated issue could “be solved in a day” kind of calls into question your credibility.
> there are few technologies available to bring emissions down to zero in areas such as shipping, trucking and aviation, the IEA said. The same problem exists in heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.
Nuclear powered ships are a reality (there are several hundred out there), and how to use nuclear power for process heat ("chemicals") is pretty obvious. Cargo should move to rail, because we already have nuclear powered trains, the last mile can be handled by battery-electric trucks. Steel is already made in electric furnaces. That leaves a few high temperature chemical processes (pig iron, cement) and aviation that depend on hydrocarbons. Don't you think we can figure those few out after we decarbonize the electric grid, space heating, industrial process heat, bulk transportation, fertilizer manufacturing, and few more low hanging fruit I probably forget?
Your arguments for transport sound reasonable and would be the best case scenario. Nonetheless, nuclear power is dangerous and not widely used in shipping. The ships that have nuclear reactors are either warships, where cost is not a factor, or huge ice breakers to enable shipping routes in northern russia. There is a push towards mobile power plants, but they have severe limitations, but could be an intermediary solution to help balance grids? I'm not sold here. Nice presentation of nuclear based ships - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilbOrNrAhOA .
For chemical processes we have a lot more work to do. While electric furnaces are used in steel production, they are used for recycling, not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal. There are hydrogen based alternatives in development, but not widely used.
No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single fatal incident.
> not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal
Yes, production of new steel. Steel is made from pig iron by oxidizing the carbon, with the optional addition of alloying elements. No reductant is needed, quite the opposite. If you're going to nitpick, do it correctly!
Now pig iron is a different story, which is why I didn't mention it. Are you really trying to say that because nuclear power can't do everything, it shouldn't be used for anything?
The only way to achieve climate change goals is to accept degrowth of the economy GDP. Some months ago a climate change dashboard appeared in HN. I played with the variables but it was not possible to decrease the CO2 level significantly. Then I notice that we could only play with economic growth bettewen 0 and 3.4. I made a copy of the site to let negative growth and that was the only way I get visible effects on climate.
I think as a civilisation we should be putting 20% of global resources into energy research.
Every leap we've made has been preceded by increased energy. Whether that's the tools that allowed us to be more efficient with energy when hunting etc, agriculture that gave enough energy to sustain large work forces or the technologies that have created enough energy to shift production away from human labor.
If we really want to progress as a civilisation I believe we should be primarily chasing energy production increases which are not damaging.
The rest will just happen as people aren't constrained by the previous energy limits and can do things that were previously not viable.
23 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 61.7 ms ] threadBut high temperature heat is only part of the process for cement making, most of the CO2 (60%) is actually released by the the calcium carbonate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#CO2_emissions].
And pushing the transition into the future is a problem, because...? I begin to take issue with this kind of language. It does not say much to a casual reader. I believe the time for this overly polite, overly cautious language is over. How about
"Failure to accelerate progress now risks to end human civilisation as we know it."
For a second there I thought you were going to argue that it's okay to push the transition further into the future. I was relieved to be wrong about that.
The most likely way to meet targets is in reduction of energy consumption. That is the one thing that this current economic system is not set up to do.
Dreaming of some non-concrete, unbounded, inchoate blueskies solution while ignoring living patterns and modes which could be changed to improve their efficiency is reckless.
The simple list is well-known, but apparently taboo due to cultural fixations in the West against centralized planning:
automobile abuse; aeroplane abuse; irrational distribution of workers geographically from their workplaces; over-consumption of meat and dairy; poorly insulated housing; overpopulation(1)
1. Please do not bother re-iterating tired arguments about racism for this last point -- it is blindingly obvious that the elevation of consumptions patterns in the rest of the world to those in the West is a non-starter if we want to fix this problem. Just because some racists are delighted at the idea because they imagine population reduction does not involve Western countries does not mean that racist motives are the only impetus here. Similarly the consequence of not fixing this problem are predicted by many to have exaggerated effects on the very areas you are concerned with.
I don’t think this is what is needed. We know the solutions - we just need to institute them. Nuclear, solar, wind, wave, etc. Massive incentives to transition to EVs, solar mandated on every new house and incentives for retrofits, etc etc. We need a coordinated plan to attack this the same way we have worldwide (ex-USA) attacked Covid19.
I disagree with the post because although I am in favour of all the initiatives suggested in it I suspect they are insufficient in the face of an economic system which is designed to keep expanding and growing.
In addition:
Nuclear power carries huge risks with it (which may become proportionally preferrable to climate destruction)
Solar is useful only for some parts of the world.
We lose massive amounts of energy in transmission from generation to consumption.
Storage is still a huge problem.
All of the above suggests that unless some realistic solutions for storage and transmission are on the table we need to shift manufacturing and consumption closer to the energy sources. Historically civilizations have clustered around such energy centers.
The small (but real) gains available from meat-consumption reduction and gasoline-consumption reduction start to look significant.
> The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills
It really is as simple as scaling up renewables, transmission, and storage.
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/the-us-can-reach-...
Factory farming is an entirely separate issue. You have to make low meat and no meat diets sexy like Tesla made EVs sexy.
That same report says:
a 90 percent carbon-free electric generation sector by 2035, which would reduce economy-wide emissions 27 percent.
Yet the IPCC targets are 43% globally by 2050, unless we believe that there is going to be some currently non-existent technology introduced then something needs to be done to close that gap...reduction seems obvious:
Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
Although that relates 2010 emissions to 2030 I think the CO2 emissions are actually higher now: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
IIRC he was reviewing some paper a while back about the disappearing arctic ice that wasn’t included in the IPCC models. Basically claiming that the target dates they mention should in fact come a few decades earlier.
So if things need to happen by 2050, it could be more like by 2035
What does HN think who is financing this anti nuclear and pro solar movement.
I've also seen anti-nuclear activists pondering who paid off pro-nuckear climate activists. There are likely very few people being paid off on either side. It's silly to me the bad faith both sides have. People can think differently without being sold out.
(1) Why does pro-solar have to be anti-nuclear?
(2) How quickly can nuclear reactors and associated transmission lines be built, and at what cost?
My understanding is we’ve reached the point where solar and wind are quite cheap (cheaper than nuclear) and rapidly getting cheaper. We still need to solve the storage issue, but things on that front are progressing quickly.
I am certainly in favor of nuclear power where it makes sense, but again as I understand it the situations where nuclear is more economical are rapidly decreasing. Perhaps it’s better for society to “skate to where the puck is going?”
Or perhaps I am incorrect about the economics?
Aside: accusing people of being unscientific while proposing a very complicated issue could “be solved in a day” kind of calls into question your credibility.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....
> there are few technologies available to bring emissions down to zero in areas such as shipping, trucking and aviation, the IEA said. The same problem exists in heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.
For chemical processes we have a lot more work to do. While electric furnaces are used in steel production, they are used for recycling, not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal. There are hydrogen based alternatives in development, but not widely used.
No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single fatal incident.
> not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal
Yes, production of new steel. Steel is made from pig iron by oxidizing the carbon, with the optional addition of alloying elements. No reductant is needed, quite the opposite. If you're going to nitpick, do it correctly!
Now pig iron is a different story, which is why I didn't mention it. Are you really trying to say that because nuclear power can't do everything, it shouldn't be used for anything?
Edit: this is the tool that I'm talking https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....
Every leap we've made has been preceded by increased energy. Whether that's the tools that allowed us to be more efficient with energy when hunting etc, agriculture that gave enough energy to sustain large work forces or the technologies that have created enough energy to shift production away from human labor.
If we really want to progress as a civilisation I believe we should be primarily chasing energy production increases which are not damaging.
The rest will just happen as people aren't constrained by the previous energy limits and can do things that were previously not viable.
Maybe it'll come up later. For now, it's been pretty quiet.
Now we have to pick between two sleazy old guys who are arguably two sides of the same coin.