this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
34 points (74.3% liked)

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

5243 readers
446 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
34
Economically failing nuclear plant to receive 1.1B bailout (apnews.com)
submitted 10 months ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "

Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If it's such a good investment, why aren't the power companies making it? Why does the US government have to pour money into their profit-making venture?

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Because their bottom line is profits only, and they can produce the power cheaper with carbon spewing natural gas turbines.

The good investment is having a massive generator of carbon-free energy, even if it loses money otherwise.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Because public opinion is against nuclear plants because people think that the current generation of plants have the same safety issues as gen 1 and 2 did.

[–] Nyfure@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

Thats why they dont make enough money? Weird reason when everyone still needs to buy your product either way..
Everyone hates war, but munition manufacturer are rubbing their hands because they know you need their stuff anyways.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear supporters always seem to be saying the new systems are different. But the same problems remain. The world needs to realize that nuclear power is a lie made up for short-term profit.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 points 10 months ago

The new systems are drastically different, and can even run on spent fuel from older generations.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's about the term of investment, since these massive projects take decades and most private investment can't afford to think that far in the long term.

If it was all about profit-making, coal, oil and gas get you way better return on investment than renewables (25% compared to 5-6%), even if in the long term it is harmful (increased healthcare spending treating cancer and environmental damage), and an unsustainable model.

As for why the US government needs to pay the private sector to do a job it could just do itself? Well that's for Americans to answer, but what I see is a lot of waving hands around nebulous "efficiencies".