Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgroat | Hacker News Reader

Is there a historical precedent for having a technology that can largely offset these risks (fission and fusion) but not using them?

I don't want to say "this time is different" (because I don't know that).

But we do find our self in a situation where technology hasn't peaked, but we aren't using the new tech we have

View on HN

What about technology for fixing water shortages due to over-pumping? What about technology to address usages of sand? What about technology to replace synthetic fertilizers derived from natural gas, and or finite resources of phosphate rock?

I think there is a big focus on "fossil fuels" but they are not the only resources we're using in an unsustainable way.

Erosion of top soil is a more significant problem than fertilizer. With respect to fertilizers and inorganic phosphate supply, it seems that these are not really necessary(they might actually be detrimental) as long as you provide the right soil microbiome for the crops which can outperform synthetic fertilization[1-2] (though I am very new to this and is outside my field and I am unsure of the validity of their claims).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO2nGHq40Xc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErMHR6Mc4Bk

This is my understanding and what I'm trying to optimize for in my food forest

Fission (and likely fusion) ended up being too complicated and expensive to do the job. But renewables appear to be much better situated to push out fossil fuels over the next several decades.

The problem at the moment with renewables is they still don't provide reliable base load, and energy storage systems while useful locally are proving incredibly expensive at scale. The fact is the only option we have right now in many countries for reliable base load generation outside fossil fuels is nuclear. Some other options may eventually become viable, like geothermal or fusion, but there's no realistic prospect of that over the next few decades.

If we want to get serious right now about eliminating fossil fuels, the fact is the answer is a mix of renewables and nuclear.

The "renewables can't supply baseload" has been so well debunked that at this point I have zero respect for anyone (typically nuclear stans) still trotting out that argument. No, renewables damn well can supply baseload, and likely cheaper than fission. The question is exactly which renewable sources and storage technologies will end up being cheapest, not whether they can do it at all.

Is this in theory or in practice?

At this point it's a race against the clock and we're losing it badly. If we can't transition to it before it's too late, then that we could do it in theory isn't worth a whole lot.

For the benefit of us all, any sources and links to educate on this :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com