this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
56 points (98.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
361 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
56
Africa’s first carbon-removal plant stokes questions about responsible climate solutions (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”

I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.

When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.

[–] sartalon@futurology.today 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are quoting "The majority of studies..." but I am not sure where you are pulling that from.

I have an issue with that quote since it is absolutely wrong about shipping and air trasport.

Edit:

And furthermore, you can't just abandon a significant sector and expect to pick it up later on.

There is tremendous momentum in each sector and to just focus on one, at the behest of others, is a TERRIBLE idea. Each sector does not exist in a vacuum. They all have supporting industries that also need to be developed and planned out. To put everything into renewables, is irresponsible at best. If we don't subsidize it all all. Then it will be a stillborn process that will never see anything outside an office.

Great, we now have 100% renewables, but we've had elevated CO2 for decades and now we have to spin up carbon capture from scratch because someone had the great idea to drop everything else. So add another 20 years for that to work up. We don't have that luxury.