Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not oil, it's coal that is the main source of CO2.

And green energy does not exist, so good luck switching to it.

People tend to assume "it will be fought every step of the way" because they refuse to believe the truth: it does not exist.



Green energy does exist.

If by “green energy” you are referring to energy production that is renewable or doesn’t produce significant CO2 emissions, then it does exist.

Here are some examples from Sweden:

District heating systems in Sweden has switched from being nearly entirely fossil fuel based (oil mainly) in the early 70s (15 TWh) and following decade (35 TWh) to be nearly entirely renewable energy in 2009 (59 TWh total of which biofuel, waste, peat, heat pumps and waste heat make up more than 45 TWh). [1]

District cooling has gone from zero in the early 90s to supply 800 GWh in 2009. This includes using sea or lake water in district cooling systems, where the system in Stockholm makes up for nearly half of that production. [2]

Swedish total energy use in 2009 is about 568 TWh. [3] Sweden has increased its renewable energy use from about 34% in 1990 to 44% in 2009. [4]

Electricity production in Sweden is about 49% large hydro, 1.9% wind, 37% nuclear (adds up to about 89%), most of the rest comes from combined heat and electricity production, which uses primarily biofuel, but also some coal, oil, gas and peat.

Sweden has a policy to promote renewables and over the years this has paid off. You can do the same.

---

[1] Department of Energy, Energy in Sweden 2010, Figure 30, page 87. http://webbshop.cm.se/System/TemplateView.aspx?p=Energimyndi...

[2] Department of Energy, Energy in Sweden 2010, Figure 31, page 90.

[3] Department of Energy, Energy in Sweden 2010, Figure 8, page 53.

[4] Department of Energy, Energy in Sweden 2010, Figure 11, page 58.

[5] EkonomiFakta, Electricity production in Sweden, http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Energi/Energibalans-i-Sv...

Edit: layout and one missing reference, grammar


A nit: aren't biofuels, waste and peat only "green" in the sense that they are renewable. In terms of climate change (which is the point of this discussion), these sources still release CO2, no?


Indeed. There is a campaign ongoing in Sweden to classify peat as fossil fuel as it takes thousands of years to recreate a peat bog. However that is how it happens to be classified in Sweden at this moment. If we didn't make waste out of oil, such as plastic bags, but paper bags etc. then waste would be "more"green than it is today. Of course a true recyclables would be preferred.


Except paper bags are far worse for the environment than plastic. The use more water, more energy to make, more energy to transport, more energy to trash, and more energy (and water) to recycle. They also can not be reused.

They have only one advantage: No litter.


Interesting, I hadn't looked for the numbers. Washington Post has an informative infographic on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/10...

I personally use very few bags as I have cloth bags with me when I am shopping for food etc. A nit, paper bags can certainly be reused, I do it all the time for our recycling, which is kept in paper bags i the garage and sometimes for shopping.

More energy and water use in Sweden is less of a problem, as our energy is largely biofuel, hydro or nuclear, but of course it is better to use less energy. Water we have quite a lot of.

Plastics isn't biodegradable and paper is, but yes, you are right, this is not an easy good/bad choice.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: