
Natural catastrophe review 2018 - 8bitsrule
https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2019/2019-01-08-press-release/index.html
======
diafygi
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-can-
you-do-about-it post :)

To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until
it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

==So what can you do about it?==

I work in cleantech, and you should, too! Solar and wind are economical, so
now the biggest issue is scaling them up. That means tons and tons of problem
solving, which means great tech and engineering jobs!

If you think about it, the switch to renewables means we need to deal with
situations where the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, yet still
keep the lights on. That means you have to build in a ton of storage and load
control, which means good communication and analysis, which means software!
Something like half of the impact of the energy transition will be done
through software optimizing the deployment and operation of clean energy
assets.

Anyway, please check out my previous comments on recommendations when looking
for climate impact work[1].

Also, working in cleantech can significantly reduce the feelings of
hopelessness around disasters. Think of it like exercise. By working at it,
your body naturally replaces anxiety with optimism and motivation. Physically
doing something to fight your anxiety will make you feel better.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154)

~~~
vowelless
> Solar and wind are economical, so now the biggest issue is scaling them up.

I appreciate your passion and desire to fix our planet. But am I the only one
who thinks this is the biggest distraction to solving the energy problems of
today and the next 100 years? It is just very difficult to get solar to
produce the type of energy the world needs for the next 100 years. And it’s
the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy!

Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy
trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the
power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern
western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it.

See this talk at NeurIPS 2017

[https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729](https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729)

[https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k](https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Nuclear is never going to happen, ever, due to a combination of issues (cost,
regulation, liability, waste disposal and reprocessing). China is throwing in
the towel on most of it's nuclear power plants [1].

I am deeply disappointed you dismiss wind and solar. They're extremely cheap
(~2-4 cents/kwh at utility scale), require very little permitting to deploy,
and fail safely. You're limited solely by how fast you can churn out PV
panels, wind turbines, and get those components installed. Enough sunlight
falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. The potential
is there, and scaling is orders of magnitude more simple with renewables than
nuclear. >90% of new generation in the US along each year are renewables. Coal
fired plants are decomissioning decades earlier than predicted. Not even
natural gas is as profitable as expected in some markets (Texas) due to how
much wind power has been generated. 150+ GWac of new solar generation is
planned to be online within the next five years in the US [2].

It would take two decades to replace all fossil generation with wind and
solar. Faster if we taxed carbon and poured that money into renewables and
battery storage. Nothing fancy required. Anyone can be trained to install
solar panels, on rooftops or on ground mounts.

[1] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-
its-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-
for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/) (China’s losing its taste for nuclear
power. That’s bad news.)

[2] [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/](https://pv-
magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/)

~~~
vowelless
Watch [https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k](https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k) and then
give me your thoughts. I am curious to hear them.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Quick comments from skimming the video:

* Speaker shows slide showing power demand increasing sharply into the future. This doesn't square with first world historical electrical demand growth data, and future growth is going to be a function of how quickly the third world develops. Aging first world countries will use less power, China's economy is rapidly slowing, India has an enormous effort to move to solar at the moment [1] [2], and Africa is a wildcard.

* Speaker states that renewables can't provide industrial heat. This is false; there are several methods through which you can obtain industrial heat without fossil fuels [3].

* Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].

* Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists.

[1] [https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-
level-o...](https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-of-
solar-power-capacity-in-2019/)

[2] [https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-
in-...](https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-renewable-
energy/)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat)

[4] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-
new-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-
farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/)

[5] [https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-
renewab...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewables-
are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/)

~~~
vowelless
This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ...

> * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to
> solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation
> technology exists.

You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk --
work on fusion.

> * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel
> plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run
> existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].

Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?

~~~
toomuchtodo
I am not arguing against working towards fusion and funding it with R&D
dollars. I am arguing against using it as a Hail Mary when it isn't proven and
renewables are.

> Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?

I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already
cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above
regarding that point). Renewables have gotten _that cheap_. This is good, as
it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in
battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid
services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power
Reserve [built by Tesla]).

[1] [https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162](https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162)

------
numbsafari
If I’m reading this correctly, they are talking about worldwide $160B USD
losses, not $160B in US losses only.

~~~
fastball
Yeah, moderators please fix. Title is misleading / wrong.

~~~
sctb
Updated from “2018 US natural disaster losses: $160B”.

------
alacombe
Not a word about the 1.2 millions acres burnt in British Columbia, Canada ?
That's pretty lame...

