this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
106 points (97.3% liked)

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

5233 readers
544 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
106
Nuclear push would drag out energy transition, PM warns (www.thenewdaily.com.au)
submitted 4 months ago by Five@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
[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We have way more resources and production available today to achieve an absolute amount of TWh. If anything, being able to acheive the same growth with Nuclear in the 70s and 80s is a much larger achievement when considering how much larger a portion of the total supply it represented.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't agree with you but either way that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How is nuclear a bad idea? It's one of the best options. Sure it's slow and expensive, but once it's up and running, it's safe, and even less radioactive than coal.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because solar and wind can be deployed much faster. You rather easily have a decade of extra coal or gas emissions, if you built nuclear today.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Two things can be built at once.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

So just do both at the same time.

[–] imgcat@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No. The total amount of money available for energy research and construction is a given amount. If it's better spent on solar and wind that's it.

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Can be, won't be tho