this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
186 points (99.5% liked)

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

6585 readers
297 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
186
Trump Orders Faster Build-Out of Nuclear Power Plants | Among a flurry of executive actions, Mr. Trump directed the nation’s nuclear safety regulator to speed up approvals for new reactors. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they're actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear has similar but opposite problem of renewables. Its hard to tune down and back up in power output, and its economics require near full capacity, and high market prices,to justify them.

Renewables are always better, because they don't need as high market electricity prices, they have short and modular development times, modular battery addition.

Nuclear projects require suppression of renewables to ensure limited competition in supply, when they are finally built.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear doesnt need to ramp up and down. Just run them full tilt for baseline loads. Power use peaks during the day, when solar is most effective. Leave some extra unused nuclear capacity to pick up the slack when renewables cant meet demand, such as during winter storms. And then add batteries to smooth out the loads.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The right amount of nuclear is then minimum nightly demand. Right amount of solar might be minimum day time demand in spring. That would cut some nuclear sales. Which raises electricity price it needs for paying for its construction.

The economics of new construction favours renewables for any expansion of production, including future retirements.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

And why important infrastructure should not be purely regulated by economics. Because corporations will always choose the most profits and not whats best for the people that use it.