Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions

Re:Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhou... by sofixa on Friday October 01, 2021 @03:00AM (#28715494)

To me it seems it's the only realistic solution ( more realistic than the grid scale storage required to make renewables only work for most countries). What does cost have to do with it? We either want to fix the problem before it renders a big chunk of the planet inhospitable and who knows what else ( e.g. the heat dome in the Pacific Northwest this summer ), or not. Money shouldn't be part of the conversation, like it wasn't in Chernobyl ( though to be fair, it did nearly bankrupt the Soviet Union and being about its downfall).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhou... by adrianN on Friday October 01, 2021 @03:05AM (#28715519)

If you're right that it's the only solution then of course cost is not that important. Many people don't think that it's the only solution, so cost is important.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhou... by eink-reader-32 on Sunday October 03, 2021 @05:00PM (#28740457)

Well another completely wild solution would be to make end users responsible for storing electricity during non-generation hours. I.e. "each home having a battery device." I just made this up now but thinking about what the end result might be...

encourages:

  - more people to buy electric cars that can also act as a whole home battery
  - even more research dollars in storage/battery tech
  - distributed power grid
  - resell electricity to grid (or maybe even local neighbours)
  - short-term power outages are handled by design
  - people think more about their electricity usage
  - people may be more likely to generate power at home

downsides:

  - unnecessary extra cost to end users
  - might be less efficient then centralization
  - certain markets/peoples will not be able to easily access stored electricity?

[ Parent | on HN ]