
100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the difference is growing - atombender
https://energy.stanford.edu/news/100-renewables-doesn-t-equal-zero-carbon-energy-and-difference-growing
======
mavhc
We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today, just replacing electricity
with zero carbon power only fixes some of the problem, still have all the
fossil fuel powered machines to replace.

If everyone in the world reduced the energy usage to 2kW (which if you
switched to electric motors rather than fossil fuel would be quite easy) we'd
need to build 3000 nuclear power stations per year for 10 years, to cover 50%
of our total energy needs. Better start yesterday.

~~~
ourlordcaffeine
>We need 70x more nuclear power than we have today

A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it.

Fission plants are hugely expensive, and take a decade or more to construct.
Investors would prefer to bring 100MW a year online every year than wait 10
years for 1GW to come online and hope the power produced is still competitive.

Then after the plant has lived its useful life, it cannot simply be demolished
like a gas plant or wind turbine. It takes specialists a good few years and
more money to decommission the plant.

~~~
godelski
> A nuclear fission world will never happen due to the economics of it.

I'm not sure why this keeps being said. France's prices for electricity are
cheaper than Germany. In fact they are cheaper than most European countries
[0]. Nuclear does have a lot of upfront costs, but they are cheap to run once
built. But the construction price will never drop if we stop building. Doing
so has already made prices go up.

What really matters is 1) can the company that made the plant make a profit?
2) If we need to subsidize to make 1=yes then is that price cheaper than the
cost of not doing it (cost by economic damage done by increased CO2 during
that period).

But the irony of this is that your argument is very similar to that which many
have made about solar.

I expect the same thing will happen when fusion becomes a thing. In reality it
is all about the S curve.

[0] [https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-
europe/](https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/)

~~~
cannonedhamster
Questions I really have never gotten an answer I find satisfactory with
regards to nuclear. What's the long term storage costs for spent fuel rods? Is
this factored into the price? Is post plant cleanup factored into generation
costs (we're paying for a nuclear plant closing nearby in our electric bills
now on top of generation costs)? Can we possibly reuse those spent fuel rods
for something else useful? Can we prevent disasters like Fukishima? Can we
prevent every single disaster?

Thorium reactors aren't currently economically viable. Molten salt reactors
come with their own downsides but are safer from what I understand, but
honestly can't say for sure. Fusion reactors would be base case scenario as
far as I understand but aren't currently viable.

We already had one problem by not thinking about long term negatives, I don't
want to replace one problem for another, far bigger, far longer term problem.
Nuclear problems tend to last longer than carbon problems, disasters like
Chernobyl will cost money for literally generations even with it's new cap as
it will be constantly needing to be replaced. Solar has it's own problems with
messy pollution on creation, wind seems cleanest long term, storage for
renewables will probably end up being some type of multi-lake hydro as the
"battery" in places where it's viable. Maybe underground aquifers where
evaporation is an issue?

I'm all for nuclear in places that already have radiation issues, i.e. space,
moon. But I really want to avoid contamination of the only planet we can
currently live in as a species.

~~~
godelski
I'll do my best to answer. I've worked on rad shielding, but that is a
different side. If acidburnNSA (a reactor scientist) shows up, ask him, he
frequents nuclear posts. These will be basic answers so I hope they help and
I'll expand on them if you want to follow up, but there's a lot to cover just
in the first paragraph.

> What's the long term storage costs for spent fuel rods?

Not too much. Frankly because the quantity is low. This is one of the things
people don't realize, while the waste is highly contaminated there's REALLY
small quantities. We're talking about less than a coke can of waste per person
per year. (that's not per reactor, that's ALL reactors) It is expensive
though. The cost of nuclear is from construction and decommissioning.
Operating costs are extremely low.

> Is this factored into the price?

Yes (mostly)

> Is post plant cleanup factored into generation costs (we're paying for a
> nuclear plant closing nearby in our electric bills now on top of generation
> costs)?

Yes (mostly)

Mostly means that it is supposed to be factored in. But those are of course
estimates. I'll also be honest that sometimes people cheat.

> Can we possibly reuse those spent fuel rods for something else useful?

They already are. 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear. That's
not 17% of France's nuclear energy, that's 17% of TOTAL energy. Additionally
most of these materials are used for a lot of other things. A lot goes to
medical.

> Can we prevent disasters like Fukishima?

Yes, actually Fukushima is a great example of how to prevent disasters like
Fukushima. The reactors that didn't fail had their backup generators on higher
ground. There were also better safety factors and I'm over simplifying things,
but the reactors that failed had sub par safety factors. We've had much better
designed reactors for awhile, but that's a longer conversation and extremely
convoluted (you'll commonly see it expressed simpler, but nothing is simple).

> Can we prevent every single disaster?

No. Such a notion is really unrealistic. I'd rephrase it as "Can we reduce
danger to an acceptable risk?" Which I'd say the answer is yes. I'd even say
we've been there for awhile. Nuclear fission is, next to hydro, the safest
form of electricity we have, even when you include predictions of future
deaths from past events (Chernobyl and Fukushima).

> (an implied one) Can we reduce environmental damage from meltdown events?

Yes! Actually this is super interesting. Chernobyl has turned into a really
big nature preserve. Wildlife is thriving there. It is interesting to also
look at radiation maps of Japan [0]. For context to this map, all measurements
are in nSv (1e-9Sv). 1Sv within a year equates to a 5.5% increase in chance of
cancer over your lifetime. But 20mSv is the max allowed dosage to a radiation
worker. You'll notice that the vast majority of places is WELL below the 20mSv
mark. Max value I found was 8,528nSv/hr (82528nSv/hr _1e-9(Sv
/nSv)_24(hrs)*365(days) = 74.7mSv/yr). The point of this last part isn't to
say something like "oh well humans can live here hur dur dur", but rather to
illustrate why Fukushima is turning into a nature preserve. But I do also want
to acknowledge that many people did lose their homes and have been permanently
displaced. Again, I believe that we should be honest.

> Thorium reactors...

This is a convoluted subject. I'll leave it for another post. There's (a lot
of) potential but we definitely need to do more research and testing.

> Fusion reactors...

Are a completely different beast. They don't have the same radiation concerns.
Their waste product is mostly Helium (a resource we are in short supply of).
While fission and fusion are both nuclear based there are more differences
than similarities (including power output, by orders of magnitude). Think like
the difference between nuclear and coal. Both heat water to turn turbines
(this is how almost all electricity is generated actually), but they're very
different in most aspects.

> We already had one problem by not thinking about long term negatives...

Honestly this is why I'm PRO nuclear. Sure it has negatives, and I'm not going
to try to deny them. If we're considering human lives then consider that coal
kills an order of magnitude more Americans per year than have ever died from
Chernobyl (several orders when you consider the world). We also have to
consider the places that have become uninhabitable because of mining and other
things that humans have done. Everything has negatives, I think we're just
more aware of nuclear's (fission's). It is about the exchange of good and bad
and if we net more good than bad. It is also about comparing to our other
options. (If we're in a negative sum game we are trying to get the least
negative, but we're still getting negative utility) I won't dive into this
because it seems you're aware of this. It is honestly complicated and a
difficult subject. It takes a lot of research. But there's a saying "When it
comes to nuclear, those that know the most fear the least." There's a reason
that the majority of climate researchers are pro nuclear, there's a reason the
UN Climate Committee endorses nuclear.

> I really want to avoid contamination of the only planet we can currently
> live in as a species.

I'm with you there. 110%. We're hundreds of years from being able to live
somewhere else. We must do everything we can to protect THIS planet.

Again, I'm happy for a follow up and I will do my best to answer.

[0] [https://jciv.iidj.net/map/](https://jciv.iidj.net/map/)

~~~
EB-Barrington
> Chernobyl has turned into a really big nature preserve. Wildlife is thriving
> there.

To give this more perspective:

For the last several years, I have spent many months each year in the
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Most of that time is not in Pripyat, or at the
extant plants being decommissioned, it's in the nature areas throughout the
zone.

My observations: birds are rare. I've seen an eagle once, and some other
smaller birds occasionally. In Pripyat, I've never seen a bird. Insects are
also rare - I once saw a swarm of flies inside a building at the Duga Radar
facility, but never any bees, cockroaches, or other insects. Not even
mosquitoes. I've seen moose, once. Horses several times (Mongolian horses been
introduced to the area post-disaster). There are foxes, but they're often the
same foxes I see time and time again. Dogs are probably the most common
animal, I would estimate I've seen 30 - 50 different dogs, always hanging
around where humans are. The catfish in the cooling pond canals are enormous,
and plentiful.

Although parts of the Exclusion Zone are exceptionally green, such as Pripyat
itself, much of the zone has a feeling of unhealthiness. Infamous areas such
as the Red Forest remain too high in radiation to spend any amount of time in.
The areas around the cooling ponds (which are large enough to appear like
lakes) look like what you imagine an environmental catastrophe would look like
- grey and barren.

I see more wildlife in any major city - and would be reluctant (and that's an
understatement) to call wildlife "thriving".

Aside:

As you point out, human lives lost were relatively few. However, this place
will be an ongoing disaster for many thousands of years to come. There will be
ongoing huge expenses (the most recently installed containment structure will
only last another century). Reactor four needs to be contained for thousands
of years, and the other reactors will require another sixty years to be
decommissioned.

And after all that, the main danger, deep inside the debris of reactor four,
will remain an enormous danger to the planet for any foreseeable future.

In general, the radiation levels throughout the Exclusion Zone are low,
comparable to many cities. I have many scheduled visits upcoming, the next
being in August.

BTW, I'm not taking a stance here on pro or anti-nuclear, just trying to add
some context from someone who has seen this place, up close, many times.

~~~
adrianN
Wikipedia claims that biodiversity in the exclusion zone is pretty good.[1]
Are you part of a science team observing wildlife, or what brings you to the
area so frequently?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Current_state_of_the_ecosystem)

~~~
EB-Barrington
I'm involved with tourism in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

------
perfunctory
It's sad to read in the comments the overwhelming disbelief in the possibility
of consumption reduction. I believe (want to believe) that most of us wouldn't
actually mind to reduce our own consumption (even drastically), but we assume
that "other" people won't. I might be naive but I tend to believe that
actually most other people are less different from us than we think. So, let's
start a discussion with our friends and relatives. Bring the subject up at the
next dinner party.

~~~
TeMPOraL
As I'm posting a lot of such disbelieving comments, let me address it here:
it's not about consumption reduction in general - it's about enough people
voluntarily reducing consumption enough to matter. We should each try their
best at it, but I don't believe you can count on it when planning climate
policy.

The best way to trigger a bottom-up consumption reduction would be massively
brainwashing people. But I can't see the usual brainwashers (media,
advertisers) interested in doing it, nor do I see why would they all want to
do that, on a systems level. The incentives are not there.

Then there's a matter of effect size. As the climate saying goes, "a lot of
people helping a little helps a little". How far are you willing to
voluntarily reduce your quality of life? Are you willing to change your job
just so that you could stop using your car? Because current predictions
indicate that it's the least it would take, from everyone. Most people don't
engage in enough spurious consumption to have a lot to cut back before it
starts significantly degrading their quality of life, and possibly becoming a
health issue. I do my best to reduce my carbon footprint; I even work remotely
these days. But I also have several people depending on me, so you can bet
that ensuring I'm physically and mentally capable of doing my job is one of my
top priorities, and I'm not going to cut consumption down to the point it
degrades my ability to support my family. Most people I know ultimately face
the same situation - they could cut down on some trivialities of no
consequence, but beyond that, it quickly becomes a matter of survival.

The situation is even worse if you consider the developing nations, who are
slated to have the biggest carbon footprint in the near future. Asking them to
cut down on consumption is asking them to go back to living in extreme
poverty. Not going to happen.

So sure, let's talk to our friends and relatives some more. But we need
systemic solutions, and we need more alternatives with smaller carbon
footprint.

~~~
perfunctory
I agree with everything you say. But let me offer a slight critique of "As I'm
posting a lot of such disbelieving comments". Please consider that HN is also
a media outlet. And while mainstream media wouldn't engage in consumption
reduction brainwashing, you can offer a counter voice and do your own
brainwashing. And HN crowd is the right audience. I believe a fair share of us
belongs to the top 10% that emits half of carbon globally ([https://www-
cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...](https://www-
cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-
inequality-021215-en.pdf)).

The absolute emissions reduction from individual lifestyle adjustments is not
that important in itself. But it should create a cultural space required for
the current and future politicians to take action. Politicians don't lead,
they follow. We live in a democracy after all. But hopefully it apparently
takes only 3.5% of the population to take an active stance on something to
cause a change
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w)).

I want to be part of that 3.5%. And I will keep brainwashing (eh, I mean
inspiring) people around me.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I always try to argue honestly and use HN discussions as a way to pick up even
more sources and information to get better understanding of climate and energy
security issues, but yeah, I am aware that there's plenty of people reading
these comments and I may be convincing some. If so, and to the extent people
are convinced by information and not accidental rhetoric, I'm happy I could
contribute. I do want to see meaningful climate change happen and I want to do
what I can to help it. Since I'm not yet involved in it in professional
capacity, HN discussions is one of the few things I _can_ do.

(We also have MEP elections today; I'm currently agonizing on who to vote. It
so happens that the people with sanest (IMO) climate and energy policy goals
are also the people I disagree with on other topics. I feel I'll go with the
climate though - it's really a critical issue.)

The "brainwashing" part was a bit tongue-in-cheek - a better word would be
"influencing" or "convincing", or maybe even "inspiring". But I like to take
opportunities to remind people that all of those are, to an extent, the same
things, and that we have an industry full of professionals whose job is to do
that regardless of the content of the message they're delivering.

EDIT: Keeping with the spirit of your comment, I know there are some regulars
here working in cleantech and energy sector. I won't name any names, you know
who you are - but remember, your input in these topics is very appreciated and
important!

------
jvanderbot
Climate change isnt just energy production, anyway. I highly recommend the
book Drawdown. The sector that they recommend as the highest impact
intervention is actually refrigerants.

~~~
strainer
They are ranked a bit confusingly by the metric of 'potential future impact'
divided by 'cost'. Refrigerants could have a huge impact if they are not
controlled and/or improved, but they need not be very costly to control and
improve. They don't yet present the scale of problem that carbon emissions
present. The IPCC after decades of studying and advising on the matter is
pretty well clear on that.

~~~
HaukeHi
You're right. Super-pollutants like methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon,
and hydrofluorocarbon have up to 2,000 times the warming potential of carbon
over a 100 year time scale.[264], [265] Advanced economies can investigate
good mitigation strategies and pay emerging economies to phase them out as
soon as possible.

However, the overall funding gap is likely much lower (perhaps in the hundreds
of millions) than for clean energy R&D (which is in the tens of billions) and
so diminishing returns will set in earlier. Thus, while investing in this is
quite cost-effective, there is an upper bound on the benefits (low benefit-
costs).

citations here: [https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/](https://lets-
fund.org/clean-energy/)

~~~
strainer
Here is the IPCCs detail of ghg gas emissions [1]

The gross global warming effect of pollutants that you are mentioning is _low_
compared to CO2. Methane emissions amount to around 16% of CO2(e) emissions,
and NOx emissions amount to around half of methanes. Refrigerants and others
about 2% so far, though they could get worse if not better controlled (which
seems to be drawdowns case).

The IPCC highlights CO2 because it is the main problem which has to be dealt
with.

[1]
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.02_rev1-...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.02_rev1-01.png)

------
jgamman
i love the fact that they posted their jupyter notebooks on github ie,
[https://github.com/jdechalendar/why100renewable-
suppl/blob/m...](https://github.com/jdechalendar/why100renewable-
suppl/blob/master/notebooks/UK_efs.ipynb)

but there's nothing there to _read_ other than code - it may as well have been
a txt file. i'm not trying to be mean to the author, i'm just pointing out
that notebooks are a good fit for a style of literate programming and if you
aren't into writing the narrative, then why use a notebook?

~~~
foota
Ease of running and portability?

~~~
__s
A modern shebang

------
nanomonkey
It's crazy that we've know how to create carbon negative energy for a hundred
years now but no one seems to be aware. We were running cars off of wood-gas
during WW2. By gasifying unused woody biomass (wood chips, corn husks, walnut
shells, pellets made from essentially trash, etc.) you can run an internal
combustion, steam, Stirling or turbine engine and produce char ash (biochar
a.k.a terra preta) which can be buried in the soil to enrich it, and also lock
away the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years (depending on who you ask).
This is carbon negative energy. Next time you go for a walk, look at all of
the tree branches and burnable fuel all over. Think of all of the forests that
went up in flames in Norther California. All fuel that could have been put to
use. Plants are great solar accumulators. We should be putting them to work
collecting energy and CO2.

~~~
bubblewrap
Biofuels do exists, but afaik they were a net negative so far. You can't
simply grow so many plants, and you also need plants to eat, not just burn.

~~~
nanomonkey
I'm not talking about biofuels, I'm talking about Syngas, a.k.a producer's gas
or wood gas. Gasification is the process to create these fuels, using
pyrolysis (heat) to break down organic material into tar gases and carbon
(charcoal). Then using the hot charcoal to reduce the tar gases into carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. The process is used for so called "clean" coal plants,
but can be utilized on any organic material. All Power Labs and a few other
companies are making small scale (20kW - 150kW) power plants, but mostly it's
just used for running logging mills (off sawdust and end cuts) as it's a good
source of heat and power.

Note: one only utilizes the unused portions of the plant with gasification, so
it doesn't affect the supply of edible plant components. If anything it causes
the cost to go down, as your utilizing the waste components (corn cobs, walnut
shells, etc.) to produce the power and heat to run your farm, or selling it to
neighbors. Gasification also helps with removing the methane that would
normally be made when these materials are composted. Methane is a much greater
greenhouse gas than CO2.

~~~
bubblewrap
Yeah I don't believe it is so simple, otherwise, why wouldn't people use it en
masse?

You assume the non-edible parts of farmed plants would be sufficient to
provide all the energy we need. That seems unlikely to be the case.

Why would it be different than Biofuel, which ended up costing rainforset for
planting plants that could be turned into fuel?

------
HaukeHi
If you want to do something about climate change—I've just launched
crowdfunding campaign to raise $2 million dollar for effective climate policy.

It's for the Clean Energy Innovation program at the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF)—a top-ranked US think tank. The program is led by
Professor David Hart and Dr. Colin Cunliff whose policy research focuses on
the effectiveness of higher and smarter clean energy R&D spending and
communicating this to policy-makers.

We have done hundreds of hours of research to figure out most effective way to
donate to combat climate change and believe this is best place to donate. Why?

You can read our in-depth analysis at [https://lets-fund.org/clean-
energy/](https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/), but briefly:

Advanced economies like the US and EU are prioritizing reducing their own
emissions. But by 2040, 75% of all emissions will come from emerging economies
such as China and India. Only if advanced economies’ climate policies reduce
emissions in all countries will we prevent dangerous climate change. The best
policies to do this are those that stimulate innovation and clean energy
technology cheaper in all countries. We compared 10 climate policies that
stimulate innovation (e.g. carbon taxes, deployment subsidies, cutting fossil
fuel subsidies) and found that increasing government budgets for public clean
energy research and development (R&D) is the most effective—even more
effective than carbon taxes.

Public clean energy R&D is neglected: only $22 billion is spent per year
globally compared to $140 billion spent on clean energy deployment subsidies
and trillions spent on energy. Many advanced economies (e.g. U.S., EU) could
unilaterally increase this substantially without international
coordination—which makes this much more politically tractable than carbon
taxes. Better yet, advanced economies can coordinate spending parts of their
GDP on clean energy R&D. Many countries have already done so by signing an
international ‘Mission Innovation’ agreement, but are not on track to fulfill
their pledges. Donating to this campaign might lead countries to get back on
track and increase clean energy R&D budgets.

This would make low-carbon energy cheaper, carbon taxes more politically
acceptable, and prevent dangerous climate change.

~~~
adrianN
How much more research can you do, realistically? If we want any chance at
meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement we (the whole world) need to be at
net zero emissions in _at most_ twenty years (assuming a linear reduction
starting now!). That doesn't seem to be enough time to go from research to
market. We already have the technology we need. More research might make it
cheaper, or it might not. But more money for deploying the technology we have
has an immediate effect.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the emissions from the
developing world are coming from consumption that happens in the rich
countries. A carbon tax that is also applied to imports would be a pretty good
incentive for countries like China to push harder for carbon neutrality (not
that they're currently not pushing harder than most of the western countries).

~~~
HaukeHi
We think it's very effective to spend more. Consider that, globally, only $22
billion in public funds are spent on clean energy R&D annually—this is only
0.02% of World GDP. For comparison, world energy expenditure was 6% of the
World's GDP. This means we spend about 300 times as much on energy than on
making energy better.

Why is there so little investment in clean energy innovation?

Generally, basic R&D is under-supplied at both the private and public level.
There are several theoretical reasons for this:

On a global level, basic clean energy R&D is under-supplied by both
governments and the private sector. Why? Because it suffers from the free-
rider problem, as all basic R&D and public goods do. Countries and firms can
just let others do the basic research and then reap the benefits because
knowledge is hard to protect internationally. Private R&D cannot be protected
perfectly because patents expire or industry know-how diffuses to other firms
and not all rents from investments can be captured. This results in a socially
suboptimal investment.

In other words, additional public investment through basic R&D funding and
subsidies increase social surplus, because private capital can only capture a
fraction of the social surplus pie. Generally, venture capital and the market
neglect capital-intensive, high-risk, high-return, long time-horizon
investments.

Clean energy R&D, in particular, is under-supplied because externalities of
carbon are not priced adequately, leading to insufficient commercial
applications for clean energy R&D.

So, advanced economies should be spending much more on clean energy R&D. This
view is shared by a number of academics, international organizations, and
members of the private sector, including:

1\. Daron Acemoglu, the most cited economic scholar in the recent decade, who
argues that optimal climate change policy requires both carbon pricing and
subsidies for clean energy research. Clean energy research should be heavily
front-loaded to carbon taxation, which can be phased in gradually to minimize
switching costs for industry.[19] This argument is not about how high carbon
taxes should be in absolute terms or when exactly they should come. It merely
suggests that we need to prioritize clean energy R&D, because it would not
make much sense to create better clean energy technology later this century.
In short, there is good reason to prioritize clean energy R&D.

2\. The International Energy Agency notes that public R&D on energy
technologies grew at an average rate of only 2% per year in the last 5
years.[20] For that reason, they argue that more spending on public and
private clean energy R&D would be productive and is needed.[21]

3\. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition,[22] a private sector coalition of
billionaires led by Bill Gates, has started a venture to invest in
breakthrough energy projects. According to recent analyses, public energy R&D
can productively absorb large amounts of additional funding[23] and should
increase 5-fold to be socially optimal. The US R&D budgets should even
increase 10-fold.[24]

A 2018 meta-analysis summarized the results of several studies[25] that all
asked several experts by how much clean energy prices if clean energy R&D were
to increase. The meta-analysis concludes:

"[...] experts largely believe that increased public RD&D investments will
result in reductions in future technology costs by 2030, although possibly
with diminishing marginal returns. [....] for all technologies, experts see
the possibility of breakthroughs that would make the technology cost
competitive, envisioning sustained annual rates of cost reduction on the order
of 10 percent per year. Moreover, such breakthroughs appear more likely under
higher RD&D."[26]

The results from these experts surveys: moving from low to medium or high R&D
investment scenarios might decrease clean energy costs by several percent.

You can find all citations and the full report here: [https://lets-
fund.org/clean-energy](https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy)

~~~
adrianN
Thanks for the references! I'll have a look and update my opinion.

~~~
HaukeHi
Let me know if you have any other questions!

------
sunkenvicar
Carbon emissions and climate change were solved decades ago in France with
nuclear power. We can adopt the French model and export it worldwide.

~~~
anoncake
I'll laugh at you blind nuclear supporters when one the French reactors
inevitability fails catastrophically. Unless I'm busy dying or evacuating to
some place that has spare housing for a few million people.

I mean, nuclear is still better than fossils, but it's still a ridiculously
stupid idea.

~~~
macspoofing
There is no alternative to nuclear, if you care about cutting CO2 emissions.
Wind and solar is necessairly paired with natural gas (or coal) because they
cannot power a modern economy by themselves (and there is no battery
technology capable of operating at city-scale).

So how else are you supposed to cut CO2 emissions?

~~~
tzs
> and there is no battery technology capable of operating at city-scale

Batteries aren't the only way to store energy. Isn't pumped hydraulic able to
work at city scale?

~~~
PeterisP
> Isn't pumped hydraulic able to work at city scale?

Not really. Pumped hydro is able to work at the scale of _a_ city, but not in
the scale of _many_ cities - effective pumped hydro requires very specific
locations (a sizeable river with sufficient flow; a comparably high drop, and
space for a large reservoirs not only above the dam but also below the dam)
which are quite rare. The best spots for it are already used; you can't simply
take a normal hydro power dam location and use it effectively for pumped
hydro.

We could double the current use of pumped hydro; we could triple it; heck,
perhaps we might use ten times of current pumped hydro if we're ready to
destroy lots of ecosystems by altering major rivers, but it's physically
impossible to have enough pumped hydro to cover half of our grid.

~~~
anoncake
Disused coal mines have a surprisingly high capacity for that. And hydro is
not nearly the only storage method aside from batteries.

~~~
macspoofing
\- pumped-hydro won't work because there are very few places that have the
conditions to enable it. Hydro in general is great, but we've pretty much
dammed every river that can be dammed.

\- batteries won't work because there is no technology today or incoming that
can a) store enough to power a city for hours, days, or weeks and b) can even
main storage across weeks or months (as would be needed since wind/solar
varies seasonally and yearly)

So what other storage methods are left?

------
perfunctory
I think this title is a bit misleading. "100% renewables" in the title does
not refer to the 100% renewable capacity worldwide. It simply refers to the
energy consumption accounting at the company level.

"Corporations that claim to be 100 percent renewable do not actually cover all
their power use with renewables, as some acknowledge."

------
ridicter
In the United States, meaningful climate action is primarily a political
problem to be solved -- not technology, policy, technology research, or policy
research.

If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here
are two options for citizens to get involved:

1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it
currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican, 30+ Dems)
support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act
([http://energyinnovationact.org/](http://energyinnovationact.org/)). With
this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens
as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization
cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress
about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.

2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based
solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather
than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that
they are pushing forward.

In addition, if you live in the states of Oregon and New York, both are on the
cusp of passing similar legislation. And there are many more out there in
various stages of development...

*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change, according to economists. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt.

~~~
dev_dull
> _If you 're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based
> solution, the Green New Deal_

Does anyone here who has looked even a little bit into this “bill” think it
will solve even a fraction of our problems without creating 100x more?

This is an honest question. I feel like I’m on crazy pills when I talk to
people about this. 10 trillion dollars? 1/3rd of all the money in the entire
world?

I mean, it doesn’t even consider nuclear energy...

~~~
shkkmo
I'm not a particular supporter of the green new deal as a whole, however most
attacks on the cost of it seem rather simplistic at best and factually
misleading at worst.

A substantial portion of that cost estimate is the single payer healthcare,
but this is money that is mostly already being spent by the US gov,
individuals and companies. Regardless of the wisdom of a single payer system,
this is mostly just shifting the cost, not creating a new one.

The other major part of this is guaranteed jobs, is a pretty broad estimate
that spans a whole order of magnitude.

In order to get that 10 trillion a year estimate you have to ignore the first
issue, take the top estimate for the second and then round up. Also, the
global GDP is about 75 trillion so that 1/3rd number is pretty far from true
regardless of the other issues.

Which is not to say it isn't an expensive plan, but throwing around misleading
numbers is unhelpful.

~~~
dev_dull
> _A substantial portion of that cost estimate is the single payer healthcare_

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It’s both everything and nothing at the
same time. And worst yet if I openly come out against it I come off as some
kind of climate denier? The whole thing stinks. It’s the worst kind of
politics I’ve ever experienced. It’s as if the bill was just a simple way to
divide people up into tribes.

Also that 36 trillion came from the first link on google for a search of “how
much money is there in the world”[1]. Not that it matters.

1\. [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-money-is-
there-...](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-money-is-there-in-the-
world.html)

~~~
dahart
That link says “physical” money right at the top. Ignoring that it’s a wild
guess, it’s barely even related to the sum total financial wealth of the
world.

36 trillion is incredibly far off, there’s a lot more wealth than that in the
US alone.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Un...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States)

Wikipedia lists over 300 trillion in global wealth, and people on Quora
suggest it’s actually over 1 quadrillion. So 10 trillion isn’t more than 3% of
global wealth, and might be less than 1%.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_w...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth)

[https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-in-the-
world](https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-in-the-world)

I don’t know much about the GND, but I’m not sure I understand what’s wrong
with a price tag on fixing the environment. We’re going to pay it either way.
It’ll be cheaper the sooner we start, and extremely expensive if we wait even
longer. It won’t take very long to lose 10 trillion dollars when we lose a few
coastal cities to rising sea levels.

------
imtringued
I wonder when hydraulic energy storage [0] will become a reality to finally
solve the storage problem for good.

[0] [http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-
system...](http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system.html)

------
alexandercrohde
According to terrapass.com the average citizen can offset their annual
footprint for < $200 a year. They say their audited, but I'd love to know if
they're legit?

------
corodra
Just an observation. To all the folks who say we all need to consume less, not
drive cars, yada yada.

Et toi? Y’all love telling other people they have to do xyz to save the world.
Are you ACTUALLY doing just that of which you say you must do?

See, I do agree, we need to consume less. But let’s be practical. Do you grow
your own food to not fuel the industrial capitalist complex? But nay you say!
I live in a city! I can do no such thing! Whose fault is that? Don’t live in a
damn city. Go live in the evil republican counties where they happily teach
you the best way to grow veggies and cut the heads off chickens. The elderly
are fucking awesome on gardening techniques.

And don’t give me this urban farming shit. It can barely produce 2% of a
city’s needs on average. Not practical.

I also think more efficient everything is a good start. Like LED bulbs cut a
lot of daily wattage across the board. However, all of that was negated when
this stupid blockchain fad starting rolling in and added another Denmark (in
essence) to the world power consumption. But that anti fiat currency stuff is
all in the name of giving economic power to the poor who don’t have access to
money or computers...

Yea and that New green deal requires the fed to print enough extra notes to
make the war on terror look like a candy bar purchase at the checkout. Because
why care about bankruptcy today when it will happen in 10 years down the road?

Climate change won’t happen through policy. You know why? Y’all think your
congressmen and women are retarded anyways. Don’t lie. You do. You think
they’re all morons. Why would you give an idiot the responsibility to do
something smart? Why would you follow any of it?

Be the change you want to see. Go out and do the actual change for yourself,
to yourself. Don’t buy big ag if you don’t like the industrialized farming
methods. You have options. Pricey ones. Or do it yourself. How about turning
off your own damn lights without a power sucking smart home system and getting
high efficient everything? Walk around for fucks sake. Read one of those low
energy devices called a fucking book instead of streaming everything non
fucking stop. After your own damn carbon footprint is nill, then you have the
right to start telling others what to do.

I’m off to smoke a cigar and check on my tomato plants.

~~~
vaylian
You raise a lot of points which makes it difficult to respond to your entire
post. So I will focus on just a few key issues:

> [1] Y’all love telling other people they have to do xyz to save the world.

> [2] Are you ACTUALLY doing just that of which you say you must do?

1: No

2: Yes (I do what I think must be done)

I know there are a lot of people and news outlets that exclaim that we must
change our ways. And I understand that it can be very tiring to hear the
accusations again and again. I believe that convincing people through a bad
concience is not a good way to make them want to change. I believe that making
them feel empowered to contribute to positive change actually makes them want
to change their ways. It is important to offer choices and not no force people
to do things.

> I live in a city! I can do no such thing! Whose fault is that? Don’t live in
> a damn city.

The problem are not cities. The problem are foods that are transported all
over the world. I do not think that the transport of food from a nearby farm
to the city is much of an environmental issue.

> After your own damn carbon footprint is nill, then you have the right to
> start telling others what to do.

I do think that many people should improve the way they communicate climate
problems. But given that the climate does not wait until we have figured out
how to converse properly, I say we should strife for pragmatism instead of
perfectionism.

