this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)

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

5372 readers
920 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
43
As US bets big on hydrogen for clean energy, local communities worry about secrecy and public health (grist.org)
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/climate
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Public health? Of hydrogen? Other than explosive concerns, what's the issue?

[–] fhqwgads@possumpat.io 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

As per the article, there's a bunch of hydrogen projects starting, but they often aren't "green" hydrogen that's made from water or whatever like people normally assume and instead is made from fossil fuels. On the one hand it means we will have an already built out and hopefully working hydrogen infrastructure for when we get "green" hydrogen figured out, but on the other hand it's not really much better than just burning fossil fuels (sort of, in some cases - it's complicated) if it's not "green" hydrogen so it's kind of a putting the Kart in front of the Mario situation. All the new subsidies say they're for "green" hydrogen projects, but the companies involved really want that relaxed because making "green" hydrogen right now instead of the other colors is really hard. Also since it's all fossil fuels based production it's fossil fuel companies doing it all, which are notoriously just honorable and good in all ways and would never do anything that could harm the public; so there's definitely no reason to be concerned.

TLDR: it's not the hydrogen it's the everything else when you make hydrogen.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also, it's the hydrogen too because there's no economical and reliable way to store hydrogen except in the form of hydrocarbons, so the whole concept is self-defeating.

[–] Tiresia 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Technically that's not a public health issue. And you can reliably store hydrogen for a day or two without too much leaking out, which does make it economical and reliable in rocketry and maybe aviation.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, not economical enough for domestic or industrial uses, and battery storage of energy can last longer?

[–] Tiresia 2 points 4 months ago

Yes.