this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
138 points (97.3% liked)

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

5243 readers
520 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
138
'No place in our homes' | Hydrogen blends leak twice as much in household cookers compared to gas: report | leakage rate is likely to wipe out any climate benefits of using H2 in the first place (www.hydrogeninsight.com)
submitted 7 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 15 points 7 months ago (8 children)

I'm very confused. About a year ago I saw a YouTube video describing the use of hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels.

It went into great detail about the effectiveness and impracticable restrictions on distribution of pure hydrogen, mainly because its extremely small molecules leak through pretty much everything and compression is required to carry any useful quantities around, not to mention storage temperature and refuelling issues.

This was contrasted with using ammonia as a hydrogen delivery mechanism instead. We distribute and transport ammonia around the planet in great quantities already. The chemical process is green, uses significantly less energy, and we already know how to do this.

What I don't understand is why we're still talking about pure hydrogen, doing studies about cooking and still trying to promote this as a great fuel, when better, more effective ways exist.

Anyone?

More information here: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/11/ammonia-to-green-hydrogen/

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The study hasn't been peer reviewed, so shame on the authors for talking about it like it's already decided, but the skeptical part of me can't rule out that this whole thing was destined to fail on purpose.

Big Oil: "See? Hydrogen doesn't work ~~in unmodified systems~~! Shucks, guess we'll have to keep using natural gas..."

And maybe it's less nefarious, like additional proof that we can't just retrofit existing systems by changing the gas mixture, but it's at least suspicious that it benefits fossil fuel producers so neatly.

[–] Aphelion@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago

Big oil has been the primary force pushing hydrogen, because they make most of it, from cracking fossil fuels products. It's complete green washing.

load more comments (6 replies)