this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

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

6166 readers
326 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
25
Insanity of carbon capture deception (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 day ago by humanspiral@lemmy.ca to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Best technology for coal electricity capture costs $10/watt (close to new on budget nuclear plants), and only captures 65% of emissions. A better "free" climate strategy would be to put them in "backup peaker" mode for renewables and run them at far less than 35% of year.

DAC can work only if price of carbon is $300/ton ($3/gallon gasoline). Still, 100% renewables is cheapest path to avoiding those taxes, but afterwards, DAC can hope to pay for itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] adrnvrt@lemm.ee 4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I think the main problem with hydrogen in Airplanes is the storage. You need either insane pressure or extremely low temperature. Both is tricky for security... And energy density is low... As far as I know no one has technology wise a real edge over anybody else at the moment. We'll see how it turns out...

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I think the designs all end up as big combined wing aircraft to give more storage. Can work, but so many new techs and challenges that no one is really investing in it....

Airport expansions like at Gatwick and Heathrow in the UK (both very contentious) should have carbon caps to encourage investment in this kind of stuff.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

There shouldn't be further expansion at Heathrow in particular, it's already a blight on southwest London as it is.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -2 points 21 hours ago

For aviation, LH2 is best because the tanks are very light too, and much of the fuel is used on takeoff which has a cooling effect on the remaining fuel. Cruising at matched boil off rate works well, and there should be enough pressure resilience for reserve fuel. Small battery can also help with takeoff and regen to handle aborted landings, as well as manage with boil off rate.

A technical challenge is dealing with very cold/liquid H2 in the fuel cell, and pipes. Unclear if that is worked out yet.