I suppose I’ll bite here. We don’t need “fancy” energy production as Southern California and the Midwest becomes uninhabitable, you serious? Coal power should be dead in the water if it isn’t. It’s bad for workers, bad for the air we breathe, water we drink, bad for the people who live around plants. That has been well established. It actually kills more people than nuclear, solar and wind combined. There’s no redeeming quality to it other than being plentiful and cheap. It shouldn’t be cheap based on the externality of the destruction it causes here and around the world.
It being plentiful and cheap is a pretty damn important and redeeming quality.
In most western countries we can afford to transition to other solutions, and it is far healthier for both the people around it and the environment, but I don’t think most of the people on this site really understand the ramifications of not having cheap reliable power. There’s a reason people left the farms and flocked to dirty hellish cities during the industrial revolution and still flock to cities and build coal plants today. It’s less hellish than living without reliable modern amenities.
Southern California and the Midwest aren’t going to become uninhabitable even if we continue pumping out as much CO2 as we are currently. I know of no reasonable projections that predict anywhere near the human cost of just shutting off power completely if it’s not clean like people seem to want to do.
That does NOT mean we can’t reduce CO2 emissions while meeting increasing energy demands. But we should be striving to do both. And given a choice between living next to a coal plant and having reliable lighting, heating, air conditioning and food refrigeration or living next to a clean but unaffordable and unreliable plant, most people would choose the coal plant. We’ve been running that experiment globally since the industrial revolution, the answer is clear. Even when taking the health effects and climate change projections into account, that choice would be reasonable. Dying of cold, dying of disease due to unrefrigerated food, dying due to inability to call for help… these are all things very distant from the minds of most people fortunate enough to be on this site. They are very real ramifications of not having reliable power. And those severe ones I just mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg.
Lets just please, please, please finish the new stuff before turning the old stuff off. Build as many solar farms and wind turbines and nuclear and hydro and battery parks and hydro batteries and natural gas lines as we need, and only turn the old stuff off when we’re actually ready. If we turn off everything not clean preemptively we’re going to kill way more people than climate change. If we were reasonable and sought to actually solve emissions problems as fast as possible there is no reason not to aggressively pursue wind AND solar AND hydro AND nuclear fission AND natural gas.
It’s sad I can make this prediction about your opinion, but I’m assuming you are probably not an advocate of fracking or nuclear power or hydro. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A lot of people apocalyptic about climate change are quite picky and refuse to pursue solutions that don’t conform to a perfect vision of a star trek like future where everything looks like the apple campus. It’s delusional.
It speaks to the privilege of those advocating green energy “at all costs” (which is not actually at all costs and maximally translates to “at the cost of the poor” due to the aforementioned pickiness) and reflects a severe lack of appreciation for the ramifications of less reliable and more expensive power on the poor.
The fact that most people on this site are surrounded by opulence and excess is creating a severe disconnect with the reality of the wider world. That default reality is that the only reason the climate isn’t killing way more people in the here and now is cheap power.
It did strike me as a pretty egregious straw man. I don't think I've ever heard anybody argue for just turning off coal plants and sitting in darkness, certainly not the poster being replied to.
In the last 20 years, the percentage of US energy coming from coal has fallen in half. Eliminating is entirely achievable.
People don’t think that’s what they’re arguing for, but that’s what happens when you go green too optimistically and aggressively. If you sacrifice reliability and robustness for being green, your grid becomes vulnerable.
From what I understand it seems reasonable to get rid of coal in the US over a reasonable time frame with appropriate replacements. I’m not arguing in favor of coal. I’m arguing in favor of going with cheap reliable energy and whatever the best and actually practical solutions are for a given area.
The fact that coal has fallen by half in 20 years doesn’t mean the other half is just as easy, either. You need a certain amount of supplemental power at night, during bad weather, during usage spikes, etc. The remaining percentage of coal use is going to be more and more concentrated in the supply areas that are harder to replace. That doesn’t mean it can’t all be replaced or that we shouldn’t pursue replacing all of it, all I’m advocating is for a sane transition that takes practical constraints like that into account and doesn’t get perfectionistic about solutions. Frankly I don’t often see considerations like that being made, I see a lot of hysterics and dogmatic assertions about how everything needs to be solar panels and wind turbines yesterday and everyone who wants moderation or other green solutions and more gradual phase in is a greedy oil shill.
> I’m arguing in favor of going with cheap reliable energy and whatever the best
Then you're not doing a very good job of it. For all that you accuse others of "hysterics and dogmatic assertions", I think your posts earn that label way more than the comments you replied to.
The transition will perforce be very far on the side of what you call "sane", to a pathological degree. There is no merit in arguing for what must certainly happen anyway.
Germany already did that. They shut down a whole bunch of power plants to meet emissions quotas thinking they could meet demands with renewables. They made their grid fragile and dependent on the Russians, and now they can’t. They’re planning on rationing and building warming shelters: https://m.dw.com/en/german-residents-make-plans-amid-fears-o...
> It’s sad I can make this prediction about your opinion, but I’m assuming you are probably not an advocate of fracking or nuclear power or hydro. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Lol yeah you’re wrong. We’re on HN after all, everyone loves nuclear. Fracking is also horrible for the environment and for climate change. Most wells leak methane which is a 6x worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Hydro and nuclear are fantastic, although we’ve dammed most places we can in the US already. Anyway I’m against coal, the climate is a cost of coal, it isn’t cheap for society. I’m for investing in doubling the nuclear capacity of this country to eliminate coal completely. Or spend the trillion dollars we’ve dumped on wars to build a superconducting power grid and save the transmission waste. Also as others have said your argument is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody is talking about going back to the Stone Age. Just talking about how to build cleaner sources of energy. If the weather of the past year hasn’t convinced you of the necessity of this, I’m afraid for the future of the world.
I’m glad you are willing to invest in other forms of clean energy.
That argument is not a straw man. I know very few want to go back to the stone age (some radicals do), that’s not my argument. A lot of people vastly overestimate the ease of transitioning and are making laws and goals and plans that are wildly optimistic and out of touch that will in effect lead to unstable grids and more people without power. No one sane wants that, but that’s already happening because a lot of places that have been aggressive about transitioning have done it poorly and without proper backup power generation options.
If COVID hasn’t convinced you rushed and panicked centralized interventions make things worse, and you’re willing to engage in even more of the kind of massive disruptions that we’ve only begun to see the full effects of because of a heatwave, you’re likely to kill more people with rushed intervention: https://nypost.com/2017/07/10/heat-death-hysteria-the-wrong-...
I meet a lot of people that are dogmatic about wind and solar and think it’ll work by itself and that the whole world needs to transition to that alone right now. In combination with other sources, in the US and rich countries we can afford to build all the clean energy we need, if all options are actually on the table. But doing that globally and doing it too fast will kill people.
This guy [1] is definitely an independent thinker and pretty regularly beats the "air quality" drum. Burning coal puts a massive amount of particulate matter into the air. That alone should disqualify it.
Hey mate, I've been going through a bout of depression recently, and I wanted to thank you for your comments on HN, this one and many of your other posts have made me laugh so much and have put a proper smile on my face, I'm sitting at my desk in such a good mood. I enjoy your form of comedy.
