Hacker News Reader

Comment by pibechorro | Hacker News Reader

I would argue that doomer is a waste of time. Time to be a prepper and realign our relationship to the planet. We could go on and on about climate doom, etc, but the most productive thing we can do is expect change, not apocalypse, and adjust.

Lead by example. Everyone reading this can go full wind and solar. Can stop driving or drastically cut it down (move closer, use public transport, work remote, etc). We can all grow food in our backyards, or living room, we can all participate in local garden coops etc. We can all refuse to take part in wars, buying new cell phones every year, wearing synthetic fibers that lead to microplastics, etc.

If we, the ones who know and care dont take action today, by example, who will?

Que excuses in 1, 2, 3...

View on HN

While I certainly agree that everything you've said about what an individual can do is true, I disagree that in the grand scheme of things that it will make any difference at global scale.

Telling people to change their lifestyle to fight climate change is the environmental equivalent of telling people to diet and exercise to lose weight. On one hand, it's obviously true, but on the other hand we have decades and decades of proof that requiring individual willpower to make societal-wide change is a failed proposition.

Large scale change is only possible with government and technological advancement, e.g. electric vehicle adoption is in some ways accelerating faster than expected, because as battery prices have come down, people have realized that electric vehicles are better in nearly every way. Better storage technologies are also making large-scale renewable energy sources more feasible.

So yes, it's a good idea to drive less and put solar panels on your roof, but let's not pretend that the requisite number of people will "follow your example" if it's too onerous for them to do so.

That all sounds accurate enough. I would say you won't get PV on everyone's roofs without some major subsidies and/or tax-breaks; or, I suppose, if natural gas prices increased enormously... But any or all of those could come about, without even a huge amount of political consensus, I would think. I was lucky enough to buy a new home that the builders had added solar to, so it was just part of the mortgage for me, but cost of retrofitting is still not negligible (even though the hardware is cheaper all the time, the labor isn't)

Renewables are already getting ready to climb the hockey stick of exponential deployment due to their cost, and EVs are not far behind. Better policy would of course speed the transition, but at this point at least, renewables are unstoppable. The faster the cost of power drops due to renewables, the more cost advantageous to electrify everything, further driving a fossil death spiral.

This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now. I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current life-style (apartment, frequent food orders, total dependency on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb (which might not go off in my lifetime) and feels like all-or-nothing gamble.

Regarding food: What you eat is significantly more important than where it comes from (there are a few exceptions). Not eating meat and dairy is the biggest impact you can have food-wise. Getting your potatoes from within 10km or 1000km doesn't really matter in regards to emissions. In fact, depending on where you live, locally grown food can have a bigger environmental impact than non-local food (due to artifical light, fertilizers, greenhouses, etc.)

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#whe...

"Lead by example."

Yes. Can you tell me more about your set up and what you do to minimize your foot print and consumption?

I live in a minivan on $2600 per month and still manage to save money. But I still. feel like I am not doing enough. I would like to get rid of my van altogether one day and just have all my belongings in a modified push cart. Kinda of like this guy but without the goats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54HRmglYEA

EDIT: I see that people might be thinking that I said this all sarcastically because of the down votes. But what I said is all true. That is how I live right now. And yes, I feel like I am not doing enough because I appreciate the calamity that our actions are causing.

I love that goat guy, he's such an inspiration. I know most people wouldn't want to live that way, and that's okay, but I can only imagine the satisfaction and fulfillment he must feel.

FWIW, we can build lifestyles that are ecologically harmonious and still have a high standard of living. One example (from the 1970's) is Village Homes in Davis CA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes It's nicer than most suburbs, and it grows food, collects rainwater, etc.

Here's a group that have a tried-and-true system for ecologically harmonious farming: http://growbiointensive.org/grow_main.html Their system uses about 5000 square feet per person, provides a nutritionally complete diet, and increases topsoil volume and fertility over time.

Here's a fellow with a complete manual for small-scale alcohol fuel production integrated into (Permaculture) organic farms. http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 You can grow your own carbon-neutral fuel, convert ICE cars and other engines to run on it, and stop using fossil fuel, w/o expensive and hard-to-dispose of batteries. Alcohol exhaust is non-toxic. You can make it out of almost anything with starch or sugar in it. (Old donut dough, bakery scraps, food waste, etc.) The atoms in the fuel come from air and water, so you are basically exporting stored sunlight from your farm and keeping all the nutrients and minerals and such. The leftovers from making alcohol can be fed to livestock (yeast, eh? It's protein. The leftovers are a better feed than the initial, uh, stuff!)

And regarding excuses. Maybe we should be able to bring up the road blocks and not call them excuses?

Like this in regards to solar that just popped up on my radar today?

https://www.wral.com/rooftop-solar-rate-changes-could-cast-l...

" NC Capitol NC Capitol Rooftop solar rate changes could cast long shadow over industry, climate change Tags: solar, NC Utilities Commission, utility bills, NCCapitol, Duke Energy, house & home Posted March 25, 2022 6:22 p.m. EDT Updated March 26, 2022 8:41 a.m. EDT

By Laura Leslie, WRAL Capitol Bureau Chief

Raleigh homeowners Gary and Jane Smith are very concerned about climate change. They added a solar array in 2019 to help reduce their carbon footprint.

"There was a tax credit and a rebate from Duke, and it began to make financial sense to put the solar panels on," Gary Smith said.

The panels frequently make more energy than the Smiths need. Duke buys it back at full retail price. It’s called net metering.

But state law says that has to change by 2027.

"The worst case scenario that we could potentially walk into is a complete erosion of this concept called net metering," said Matt Abele with the NC Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA). "Obviously, we would love to continue down the path of net metering as it currently exists here in North Carolina. But unfortunately, that's just not the reality of how it's playing out."

NCSEA is one of the groups that negotiated the deal with Duke Energy late last year. It will reduce what the utility pays for rooftop solar power during most daylight hours. And it will add a minimum bill for homeowners with solar panels."

So while we try to change individually, the corporations will see a chance to profit. Duke Energy had a 12% net profit margin with a gross profit of $4.4 Billion in December 2021.

I would say voicing your opinion that these utility companies should publicly owned would be a good start.

Full net metering is asking folks without solar to subsidize your "batteries", namely the power-grid.

Your power bill is more than just generation costs. It's also distribution AND providing power 24/7, which household solar (without storage) does NOT do.

Suppose that your power company charges $0.50/KwH at peak time. They pay less than $0.50/KwH to other power generators, so why should they pay that to someone with rooftop solar?

Note that solar actually doesn't line up with demand all that well. (Most panels are oriented for maximum power production, which peaks too early in the day.)

I am sorry if I do not shed tears for companies that make billions in profit(!) while ice shelves are cleaving off the Antarctic.

https://twitter.com/StefLhermitte/status/1507397236849876992

These companies are concerned about losing profit, because shareholders. And they actively fight against solar whenever they can because one solar uses is a loss to them. And they use the propaganda you reiterate to believe their sad story.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/13/solar-power-...

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/12/20/fl...

It's not the power companies, it's the other customers of those power companies.

Why should they pay to time-shift your energy production?

If net metering is available to me, I’d orient them for maximum energy (what you called power) production as well.

> Duke Energy had a 12% net profit margin with a gross profit of $4.4 Billion in December 2021.

Having previously invested in Duke Energy (but not currently directly invested in them), that gross profit figure seemed dramatically wrong. Because it is.

For the quarter ending (not the month of) Dec 2021, Duke Energy had a gross revenue of $6.2B, with a cost of revenue of $3.6B, for a gross profit (for the quarter) of $2.7B (figures are correct but seem incorrect due to rounding).

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DUK/financials/

Gross profit isn't even a useful metric here. SpodGaju is just cherry picking a number that's high to make it sound outrageous. SpodGaju is ignoring all the infratructure (and related costs) needed for reliable electricity.

Gross profit is gross profit. It is not a number I am making up. They made 5% more profit then they did last year. Their gross profit, meaning money they have left after accounting for all expenses, was $18 billion for 2021.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DUK/duke-energy/gr...

Duke Energy annual gross profit for 2021 was $18.137B, a 4.49% increase from 2020.

https://wraltechwire.com/2022/02/10/duke-energy-ceo-q4-cappe...

"For the year, the company reported profit of $3.91 billion, or $4.94 per share. Revenue was reported as $25.1 billion."

Profit, that is money left over. Can you explain how stating a companies profit is cherry picking?

> Their gross profit, meaning money they have left after accounting for all expenses, was $18 billion for 2021.

That’s not at all what gross profit is, nor is their GP for 2021 that high.

In rough terms: Gross profit is revenue minus cost of revenue. Operating income is gross profit minus operating expenses. Pretax profit is OI minus financing and other costs and is much closer to “after all expenses (except taxes)”.

Further, their financial statements show their gross profit for 2021 to be $12.1B with a taxable income of $3.8B. (Both the yahoo link above and WSJ agree: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/DUK/financials/annual... (For WSJ, take gross revenue and subtract COGS ex-D&A to get to GP))

In California, we have the NEM 3.0 fight https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/02/04/california-nem-3-0-de...

In other states (look up what happened in Nevada), rules have been changed that massively rebalance the economy in favor of not getting rooftop solar.

I agree with some of the other comments here about renewables sometimes causing harm through their production / lifecycle. Our best bet is the first “R”: Reduce.

You say excuses but none of that individual things matter. Even if the people who read this and their friends take action, it will not matter.

Let's be realistic. Only 100 companies responsible for 71% global emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

Not sure if you want to go where honest approach to this takes you.

To make as little impact as possible you should use as little resources as possible, so you should always choose cheapest, most artificial, mass produced versions of everything, including food, never travel, work as little as possible and only remotely. Basically be poor or at least act poor in every aspect of your life. Wear cheapest clothes and don't buy a new pair until they literally fall apart to the point that parts of you are sticking out that are illegal to stick out.

You might say that it's not a healthy way to live. That's even better, the sooner you die, the less resources you'll use. Don't breed of course.

If you are afraid you might have trouble sticking to your resolutions, then donate all of your wealth to something environmental and just move out of US into some poor country. It will do the bulk of your impact saving for you.

This might be accurate today, but it ignores our ability to make technological progress to make our current activities low or no impact.

Further, this line of thinking - that you need to sacrifice your lifestyle in order to save the planet - is IMO one of if not the major reason we haven’t made progress on addressing climate change to date. Plainly put, people tend to be short term selfish, even often at the expense of their own long term interests, and they tend to not want to change their behavior / habits.

We should instead focus on the technological progress that we need to make in order to be able to not only maintain our current lifestyles but possibly have them be better (eg a Tesla is a better car, a heat pump is more comfortable than a furnace, an induction stove boils water faster and has more precise control, etc). To be clear, most of this isn’t technological invention it’s implementation - a lot and a lot of implementation.

I don't think we can wait on technological magic bullet to deus ex machina save us from disaster.

Economy got us into this mess. Economy needs to get us out.

Climate change would be already solved if somebody figured out how the richest could earn more money when the energy is more expensive rather than when it is cheaper.

Billionaires would singlehandedly legislate all the necessary laws that would make energy as expensive as it really is to our planet. An our livestyles would change against our selfish preference. You wouldn't fly abroad for vacation if it costed more than your annual salary.

People in the developed world would need to be much poorer in relative terms to save the planet from global warming.

Tradeable right for emitting CO2 are great mechanism, because they let rich get richer by driving up the price of CO2 and the high price changes behaviors of energy consumers, producers and whole economy.

Agreed that we can’t wait. The large majority of the technology we need already exists, we just need to accelerate the adoption that would happen naturally.

A focus on this “punitive” side of things - that we need to pay for our transgressions through a dramatically reduced lifestyle - is just going to ensure that we drive straight off the cliff.

And yes, the economy is going to need to get us out of this. We need to make sure that the incentives are properly structured for the majority of the transformation to happen via the distributed market mechanisms vs being centrally planned.

Your classism is a big part of the problem.

What you describe is called asceticism, it has a long and storied history with significant contributions to the long-term cultural stability of humankind, and American culture basically just hasn’t been around long enough to develop it yet.

> ... with significant contributions to the long-term cultural stability of humankind

I don't think that's true. Leitmotif of history of humankind is the exploitation of available resources to the boundaries of reason and beyond.

I agree with most of your points.

Please research solar and wind before switching, though. Until we have solved the problem of energy storage, in many cases, solar and wind actually tend to increase pollution, because they both rely upon polluting raw materials for both themselves and their batteries and need backup power, which to this day means gas.

That is unless you find yourself with a good problem set in which e.g. you only need energy while the sun is out (AC in the summer, maybe, or perhaps warming up water for your early evening shower?) or while there is wind (no example from the top of my head, but I'm sure there are good ones).

This argument is total oil company propaganda. Raw materials do not pollute. Their mining and manufacture does, but that again is because of oil consumption in an outdated manufacturing chain. Burning oil produces CO2. It is chemically impossible to avoid this. Manufacturing silicon and harvesting lithium do not produce CO2, and these processes can be cleaned up.

Concrete production requires CO2 from energy but also releases CO2 from the chemical processes. (Concrete is heavily used in wind energy production systems.)

You seem to be using "pollute" as a synonym for "releasing CO2", while Yoric does not.

I think the two of you are talking past each other.

So you are agreeing with Yoric then? Doubling up in energy infrastructure increases mining and manufacturing, which then increases pollution. But then you say it's propaganda?

Can you tell me more about why you are equating the mining of metals for solar/batteries with climate changing GHGs - eg why are they both equally as bad? I’m not disagreeing with you, I am genuinely curious to hear your perspective.

I do generally agree with you on your second point that it might not be the most productive action to take - for the time being it would probably be better for most people to focus on electrifying their homes paired with switching over to 100% clean energy (many utilities allow you to choose this option).

> Until we have solved the problem of energy storage

We have. Pumped hydro and batteries (iron flow is successfully being deployed commercially, but also lithium ion; Li-Ion prices continue to drop 6-12% per year.)

> because they both rely upon polluting raw materials for both themselves and their batteries and need backup power, which to this day means gas.

No.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-e...

> To pick a much tougher case, the “dark doldrums” of European winters are often claimed to need many months of battery storage for an all-renewable electrical grid. Yet top German and Belgian grid operators find Europe would need only one to two weeks of renewably derived backup fuel, providing just 6 percent of winter output — not a huge challenge.

> The bottom line is simple. Electrical grids can deal with much larger fractions of renewable energy at zero or modest cost, and this has been known for quite a while. Some European countries with little or no hydropower already get about half to three-fourths of their electricity from renewables with grid reliability better than in the U.S. It is time to get past the myths.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myt...

> The essence of the wind sceptics' case is that a scaling up in wind power will have to be "backed up" by massive investment in gas-fired open cycle turbine (OCGT) plants, which are cheap to build but considerably less efficient than the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants which deliver the vast majority of the UK's gas-fired electricity supply.

> Their arguments are not borne out by current statistics, however. If the sceptics were right, the recent windy conditions would have seen considerable use of less-efficient OCGT as wind input to the grid ramped up and down. In actual fact, during the entire June-September period, OCGTs and equally dirty oil-fired stations produced less than one hundredth of one percent of all UK electricity. In total they operated for a grand total of just nine half hour periods in the first 19 days of the month – and these periods had nothing to do with changing windspeeds.

Further references:

https://usa.oceana.org/renewable-energy-myth-vs-fact/

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf

Stick to writing web browsers.

By any chance do you live in California or US?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com