this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
26 points (93.3% liked)

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

6166 readers
299 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
26
Insanity of carbon capture deception (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 day ago by humanspiral@lemmy.ca to c/climate@slrpnk.net
12 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
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It’s only path to 100% renewables.

That's nonsense. Hydrogen is just another engery storage technology, and an inefficient one.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

Batteries are more efficient, and charge/discharge comes from same device, at a very high power rate. But $100/kwh or even $50/kwh storage cost is higher than $1/kwh cost of H2. H2 being transportable and siteable anywhere with water/electricity access, makes it much more useful than alternate storage technologies.

The battery problem is that it will be sized too big to charge or discharge on some alternate days, and too small to fully meet energy needs on others. The high storage costs mean an economic requirement to have at least/close to full daily charge/discharge cycles.

The sellable/transportable property of H2 means producing an unlimited amount in one place, and distributing it as needed. H2 has many different applications than fuel/electricity conversion as well. If we ever make too much, we can shoot stuff into space with it.