News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by roenxi on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @06:48AM (#18440281)
We can shuffle the numbers around all you like, but if we don't use cheap energy then more of our resources go to energy production and standards of living will drop. A "higher tax rate" is slight of hand argument for "we'll make the costs so convoluted that no-body will understand the cause". It isn't a solution to the problem of making people's lives more materially comfortable and satisfying.

It is all very well to say that orangutans _should_ be more important than a standard of living, but in practice people will say one thing and vote in a completely different way when they are actually tested. Orangutan are not important compared to keeping families struggling between financially viable and non-viable on the good side of the margins.

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by perfunctory on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @09:03AM (#18440970)
Honestly I find the arguments about dropping standards of living unconvincing. What do we need all these energy for? Mining bitcoins? Powering online ads? After I stopped driving car every day my standard of living has only gone up. I am sure stricter limits on energy consumption will only unleash untapped creativity and spawn the whole new industries and create tons of new jobs.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by roenxi on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @02:45PM (#18444207)
Well, we use different sources for different things, but as a rule literally all fabrication and industrial activity uses energy. Eg, some big ones,

* Producing aluminium (Apple products) * Producing & storing food (Haber process is energy -> fertiliser @ ~1-2% of worlds energy, refrigeration will also be a big deal) * Transport (of food and goods) * Heating (probably a bigger deal in places like Europe)

Energy is secretly quite fungible - eg, we can burn fossil fuels directly for grid electricity and use grid electricity as a substitute for fossil fuels if the price differential between the two gets large.

If general energy costs go up, food prices go up. That is the most obvious link between energy prices and poverty, but there are other less clear ones.

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by wild_preference on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @02:21PM (#18443964)
I find it similar to arguments that try to scare me with "but then we won't be able to eat meat for every meal."

"Well, good," I think, "sounds like exactly what we need."

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by arbitrary_name on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @08:11AM (#18440647)
I'm ok with taking a hit if it means more wildlife.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by ryanmercer on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @08:23AM (#18440719)
I'm ok with going early 1900's if it means we can get down to 1-2 gigatons of carbon a year instead of nearly 40 this year, and probably more than 40 next year, so we can buy some more time until we can start sequestering excess carbon we've put into the environment before stuff starts getting really bad.

We are generating 4x the electricity we were in just the early 1970s, that sort of increase isn't sustainable and we're already seeing consequences of our actions. Unless a fleet of alien ships show up in orbit and charitably give us a bunch of fusion reactors... we've got to start making some pretty radical changes in our lives.

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by adam-a on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @09:48AM (#18441301)
In the UK for example the electricty usage has gone up from 192 TWh to 300 TWh, which is not great but not 4x either. The increase is mostly down to the developing nations around the world. So we'd have to go back the 1950s to see a 4x reduction (73 TWh in 1956).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historic...

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by kungtotte on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @01:30PM (#18443393)
Yet if you look at the data, western countries are responsible for way more carbon per capita than the rest of the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by nsxwolf on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:22PM (#18442722)
I'm not ok with going early 1900s. Most people aren't.

I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". So I'm not going to consider myself part of the problem.

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by ryanmercer on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @04:13PM (#18444953)
>I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no".

Uhhhh, I never said no to nuclear. I said at best it's a bandaid.

We have a few decades to make some very considerable changes, maybe two centuries to find alternative means of energy (fusion, mining asteroids for PV and battery materials etc as there's a very finite amount of the materials needed for manufacturing batteries and panels on earth too).

People like to say nuclear is our savior but, at current energy production levels, with a moderate estimate for continued growth, there's maybe 100 years of fuel there. Nuclear just isn't a solution for the world's energy needs, it however is a GREAT solution for generating considerable amounts of power in small spaces (ice breakers, submarines) and for portable power for emergencies like with the Russian floating nuclear power stations (Google the Akademik Lomonosov).

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by _Tev on Thursday November 15, 2018 @07:59AM (#18458890)
> there's maybe 100 years of fuel there

At least you have not made the mistake of inclusion "waste" as a problem in the same post.

Breeder reactors solve this. Yes, fuel will be significantly more expensive because of them. But all these "issues" with nuclear (except capital intensivity, that will likely stay) will go away.

Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by beaconstudios on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @08:31AM (#18440762)
it's not the average HN user that would be meaningfully impacted by such changes.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by pjc50 on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:42PM (#18442914)
Nuclear is not a cheap source of energy these days; the strike price for Hinkley Point C is higher than that offered to most wind farms.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by _Tev on Thursday November 15, 2018 @08:03AM (#18458913)
Look at the guarranteed price of electricity from those wind farms.
Re:Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wreckin... by pjc50 on Thursday November 15, 2018 @10:10AM (#18459792)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.