Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloutchaser | Hacker News Reader

I'm hoping we get some new green movement soon that is much more pragmatic about how we can actually reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear, and more natural gas are the answer, at least transitionally.

Oh, and also I'd like to see green movements taking less Russian money...

"People think Europe depends on Russia for energy because it lacks its own, but 15 years ago Europe exported more natural gas than Russia does today. Now, Russia exports 3x more gas than Europe produces. Why? Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking." https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993866370667274...

"In 2014, NATO's secretary general revealed Russia was funding climate activists, saying, “Russia... engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas" https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993872777215508...

View on HN

Agree on nuclear, but natural gas isn't necessarily better than coal after accounting for methane leaks. The industry has lobbied hard against any requirements to monitor or mitigate those leaks.

Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?

I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.

natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it.

A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.

If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably. You need to do this because third world countries can't afford renewables, or there simply isn't enough supply to roll it out quickly (within 10-20 years). But they burn a lot of wood, which is unnecessary, and can be switched to gas cheaply and easily.

Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally.

The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.

> If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably.

Bottom line: the amount of CO₂ emitted by "third world" countries is miniscule and it is only a distraction to point to it.

In 2020 the US alone emitted about as much CO₂ as all of Africa, India, and South America together:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

(India: 2.44 billion tonnes, Africa: 1.33 billion tonnes, South America: 994.16 million tonnes, total: 4.76 billion tonnes; US: 4.71 billion tonnes).

That's just the US, not counting the rest of North America, Europe, the rest of Asia and China, some of which may count more as "third world" than others, it's up to debate.

Have a read: https://woodsmokepollution.org/climate.html

I can't find the words "third world" in the link. Can you explain?

I am not sure I agree on the natural gas idea. Methane is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. It can be very efficient at point of combustion vs coal or oil. The problem is the drilling, extraction, and pipeline leaks.

Many developing countries are near the equator and can take advantage of solar. The distributed nature of solar is also a benefit for countries that lack infrastructure. Why not start with a cleaner solution? Countries in Africa and South America can increase their use of hydroelectric power as well.

> third world countries

I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.

> can be switched to gas cheaply and easily

I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography.

Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal.

Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West.

At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts.

In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE

>I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.

I'm pointing out that reality is far more complex and fraught, and that it's naive and, yes, even presumptuous to assume that so-called "third world countries" are simply going to go along with an amorphous "we" group trying to "tackle emissions" just because "we say so".

There's a stark difference between having the facts right, and having enough credibility to be believed by everyone else that you're right.

I mean, fracking shouldn't be allowed.

I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.

Barring breakthroughs in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is not a short term solution. We can't build thousands of nuclear reactors globally and staff them with qualified personnel when constructing a small handful of reactors already takes 15+ years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com