[HN Gopher] "Carbon Bombs" - Mapping key fossil fuel projects
___________________________________________________________________
"Carbon Bombs" - Mapping key fossil fuel projects
Author : julosflb
Score : 56 points
Date : 2022-05-15 18:18 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sciencedirect.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedirect.com)
| nosianu wrote:
| Here is a pretty good Guardian article about the study, where I
| found this a few days ago:
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/...
|
| The study is linked at around the middle of the article.
|
| It has a few supporting articles at the bottom under "More on
| this story", for example one headlined "Climate chaos certain if
| oil and gas mega-projects go ahead, warns IEA chief"
| fny wrote:
| I hate to say it, but if energy prices keep rising this
| perspective is going to be disposed of rapidly.
|
| High energy prices mean rampant inflation and social unrest. With
| crude and natural gas prices skyrocketing, developing nations
| will again turn to coal as an energy source. Developed nations
| will return (see Germany) to coal as a heating source.
|
| Green energy will be thrown to the wayside for the sake of social
| stability give the tumult we've observed to this point.
|
| For the short run, there is unfortunately no viable alternative
| without enduring 5-10 years of pain. Over the long run, I hope we
| get more nuclear reactors online.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This might have been true 20 years ago, but the economic
| envelope has changed: solar and wind power are both
| consistently cheaper than fossil fuels. This holds true even in
| developing nations[1], which means that countries that are
| still building out their initial power generation and
| distribution systems stand to benefit from skipping a costly
| transition entirely (not to mention eliminating a geopolitical
| lever.)
|
| [1]:
| https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majori...
| Retric wrote:
| Why would you spend more money on coal than you can spend on
| other options?
|
| Power companies aren't building Wind/PV because it's green they
| are building it because it's cheap. Yes, higher inflation means
| higher interest rates, but it also means higher payments from
| customers over time.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| You know what else causes social unrest? Starvation induced by
| crop failure. We're already seeing the first signs with recent
| extreme weather and the megadrought. Wait just a short few
| years until it really gets moving.
| downsidesabound wrote:
| That too will cause social unrest, indeed. But we won't
| suffer social unrest today just to make tomorrow easier,
| however wise that might be. We'll kick the can.
| ben_w wrote:
| Why would the world turn to a more expensive fuel source?
|
| Even in Germany, coal is more expensive than wind and mostly
| more expensive than PV:
| https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...
| barney54 wrote:
| It is not valid to compare the levelized cost of non-
| dispatchable sources of generation like wind and solar and
| dispatachable sources of generation like coal and nuclear.
| It's an apples to oranges comparison, unless you some storage
| costs to the wind and solar.
|
| In that study you see there is overlap between coal and PV
| systems and batteries.
| ben_w wrote:
| Only for rooftop batteries. The estimate for utility scale
| batteries is _entirely_ lower than coal.
| paganel wrote:
| Of course that the West would label everything as a "carbon bomb"
| right now, i.e. everything that doesn't fit its socio-political
| biases. Labelling nuclear power-plants the same would be met with
| derision, even though in our day and age the price of energy and
| the price of "stuff" is pretty well correlated, and seeing as
| nuclear power-plants are pretty damn expensive then it means
| that's lots and lots of energy that has been "incorporated" into
| them. But because there's no black smoke getting out of those
| nuclear power-plants then it means it's all "in our heads" or
| something. The same goes for most of the subsidised "green"
| energy.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| ...is the argument you're making here that somehow a nuclear
| plant or solar farm is somehow equally polluting as a coal-
| fired power plant? Everything costs time, materials, and money
| to produce, but only coal plants continue to actively pollute
| after construction...
| montalbano wrote:
| If I understand correctly, what you're describing is often
| called 'embodied carbon' or 'embedded emissions' [0].
|
| Many people spend their lives estimating embedded emissions
| and, more importantly, the time it will take for any emission-
| reducing technology (e.g. electric cars) to amortise away the
| CO2e emissions required to produce it.
|
| For instance, it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs
| to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less
| harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla" [1]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_emissions [1]
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...
| ben_w wrote:
| > it's been estimated that a Tesla Model 3 "needs to be
| driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm
| to the environment than a Toyota Corolla"
|
| Huh, that's a factor of 5-10 less miles than I was expecting.
| Good to know.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-15 23:00 UTC)