This is the stupid shit we get for letting Iowa always be first in the nominating contests.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
129 points (96.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
286 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Like, the solution has become very clear and apparent.
Solar panels and batteries on all homes. Wind energy wherever possible with gridscale backup. Electric vehicles for anything with an axle-weight below 10k. Hydrogen (if we must) for everything above 10k, until we have batteries with weight to performance ratios that can support trucking with electric.
Climate change and carbon reductions are only a technical issue if you insist that every one be working all of the time to justify their existence. Appreciating that most of almost everyones work is just 'busy' work in the exercise of justifying our existence, we could easily solve this issue.
Appreciating that most of almost everyones work is just ‘busy’ work in the exercise of justifying our existence, we could easily solve this issue.
Not to mention how much pollution commuting to do the busy work causes!
Hydrogen (if we must) for everything above 10k, until we have batteries with weight to performance ratios that can support trucking with electric.
Hydrogen is even dumber than ethanol.
The better solution is to minimize the number of vehicles that need to be long-range and self-powered in the first place by aggressively improving rail infrastructure (including electrifying it), and then run the bit that's left on biodiesel sourced from waste feedstocks.
I mean I only begrudgingly support hydrogen, because in theory, it can be produced by renewables and we do need something more energy dense for things that move heavy things.
The trouble is, hydrogen is really bad at being energy-dense, requiring either cryogenics or dangerously-high pressures to fit enough in an automotive-gas-tank-sized space.
Frankly, if you want to insist using hydrogen, the best thing to do with it would be to react it with CO2 to make synthetic gasoline and use it in the internal-combustion engines and gas stations we already have.
I think you store it in salt.
Not in a car, you don't. You're thinking of proposals to store large amounts of it at rest in former salt mines, but that doesn't help you actually use it in a vehicle.
Actually, big rigs being all ev is fine for last mile / in-city delivery.
You want any shipping to back heavily on rail for any distance, don't you?
Germany's electrified highway system looks very promising for longer distance truck transport too. It's basically the same system that overhead electrified rail uses. That way the battery only needs to be able to get the truck to and from that highway, the distance covered on the highway is charging time.
Not all candidates. Just all democrat and republican candidates.
So all actual candidates.
Self fulfilling prophecies
Economists believe is something called externalities. Its very important and it corrects the market. If something is good for the world then you government needs to make it cheaper by subsiding it. If it's bad then their should be a tax on it. Economist gernally strongly support this but the public seem to be against this.
This here is giving money to farmers. It's basically the opposite of externalities. It's really stupid.
anything that isn't a solution is violence against the people who can't afford to survive 3 degrees of warming and we need to defend ourselves right now.
Compare this to gasoline. Same engine, right?
For cars older than a decade, is it or is it not marginally better than inefficient and toxic gasoline?
There's a fair bit of evidence that the ethanol is worse:
the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher