Hacker News Reader

Comment by BurningFrog | Hacker News Reader

My theory is that people hugely overestimate the importance of things they see and touch.

Flying is the most fossil fuel intensive thing regular people interact with, so we naturally assume it's the biggest energy user there is.

Last I heard the number was around 2% of all CO₂ emissions.

View on HN

CO2 emissions are only part of the story when it comes to the effects of aviation on the climate [1]. For example, contrails and formation of clouds contribute to warming. Additionally, the proportion of emissions attributable to flight is expected to grow significantly over the next 30 years. And it's easy to understand why, a single roundtrip flight across the atlantic is comparable to a whole year of commuting [2].

[1]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-avi... [2]: https://www.sciencealert.com/ipcc-report-2018-easy-things-yo...

Heating is actually the biggest user, accounts for 50% of global energy demand. This includes space heating as well as process heat.

In that case the answer is staring us in the face: we need to accelerate climate change in order to warm up the cold regions of the world and reduce our reliance on artificial heating.

What about Africa and Asia, where most people live? We move them no Norway?

We just need enough ice-cold water pipelines to balance things out.

And this is something that can be fixed with current technology. Today you can easily build housing that uses no fossil fuels for heating, and in actual fact will generate more energy than it consumes (over the course of a year), even in cold climates such as Scandinavia.

But most people disregard this on the basis of cost (in reality it costs a little more upfront but saves money in the long term) or outdated conditionings that buildings need to breath naturally and should not be airtight.

Shouldn't there be low-interest financing for this? Seems like a no-brainer if the savings more than make up for the cost + interests.

That's a very good question. Community cooperatives and municipal banks seem to be doing this, but not the commercial banks. I wonder why.

Process heat is useful, only nobody wants to live near industry or nuclear power station. Maybe it can work out with SMRs.

Last month China actually started up a district heating system that uses the waste heat from a nuclear reactor.

I lived 6 miles from an operating nuclear power plant for decades. It was fine. Interestingly, the most pro-nuclear people are often those who live in the emergency planning zone. It's thought that this is due to the local outreach that the plants do with boy scouts and whatnot.

Also probably selection bias. And also people who are employed there live nearby.

That's also certainly part of it. I think it's a good thing that people who work there generally feel very safe. Interestingly, the nuclear industry has one of the best occupational health records. Mostly because you have to take a damned training before you operate a ladder.

CO2 emitted from an airplane at altitude isn't equivalent to CO2 emitted at ground level, in terms of global warming potential, so you have to adjust for that.

I find that hard to believe. Can you provide a reference or a short explanation?

Last I heard the number was around 2% of all CO₂ emissions.

The number I heard most recently was 3% and growing, but generally, I think I agree with you. It is something we will have to tackle, but there is higher priority, relatively low hanging fruit that will have a much bigger impact.

Sure, but CO2 emissions need to be zero, so there has to be an alternative.

> CO2 emissions need to be zero

Net emissions. Planes burning fuel synthesised from electrolysed water and atmospheric CO2 is a closed carbon loop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com