this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
51 points (100.0% liked)

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

5290 readers
591 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Track_Shovel 7 points 1 month ago (10 children)

We really should be using nuclear. I know people are concerned about the longevity of the waste but it's not much different than any other waste like you'd find with mining. There is enough arsenic trioxide at a mine in the NWT to kill everyone on the face of the planet 7x over. It's all underground. Their plan for it? Keep it frozen in perpetuity.

Waste rock dumps from mining can have tremendous amounts of metal that can easily leach out for a very long time given that these dumps are hundreds of millions of tonnes of rock. They are usually covered and left once monitoring indicates they are stable.

There is tons of modelling and engineering that can go into waste mgt. It shouldn't deter us when we are literally staring down the barrel or extinction

[–] silence7 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The main reason you don't see a lot of new nuclear power plants going up is that it's more expensive than any other way to generate electricity, and the recent experience in the US has involved massive budget overruns for nuclear.

[–] Track_Shovel 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

There's massive budget over-runs for just about every mega project. I concede that nuclear is at the top of the list that I link. I actually heard a good talk about how doing field trials can really help reduce overruns for a major project (e.g. mining). Hard to do with a powerplant, I suppose, but easier to do with nuclear storage.

[–] silence7 6 points 1 month ago

That's the thing about wind and solar; they look like a series of smaller projects instead of a mega-project. So you don't have that problem in the same way.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)