this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
60 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5205 readers
773 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's clear we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere in addition to moving away from carbon-producing energy sources entirely. It's also obvious that these systems will only have net-negative carbon impacts if they're powered by renewables. At this point it's much more carbon-removing and cost-effective to transition to renewables than for energy companies to "offset emissions" by buying "carbon credits" in the form of running these technologies while still producing CO2 etc. At the same time, many countries in Africa have ample renewable resources and would benefit from investment in electrical infrastructure, and if there's incentive to choose renewable instead of fossil fuel to develop Africa and bring up the quality of life of the people living there while industrializing, I think that's ok, and might lead to fewer emissions overall (assuming African countries' industrialization follows the trend of other developing nations).
This comment is well reasoned. Carbon capture is worth continued development and research, it should be a long-term goal once we have moved to 100% renewable sources of energy, until that point it’s just wasteful to spend money on this where it would better be spent on provisioning more renewables or infrastructure as you very rightly point out.
I have to disagree with you because we need to invest now, if for no better reason, to advance carbon capture technology. It needs to advance in parallel. Otherwise we are just pushing that can down the road.
As much as I want to be 100% renewable/clean, that is never going to happen. Not at our population, not at our power demand level, not at our rate of growth.
Hell, we can't even get people to accept nuclear power as part of the solution.
100% renewable is absolutely achievable and viable, according to many industry expert ye including the IEC. Arguing otherwise is fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Nuclear energy isn’t really part of the solution. It can continue to exist as it currently does but building more nuclear power isn’t going to help, it’s too expensive and too slow to provision. The best solution is to double, triple or quadruple funding/investment in renewables and infrastructure. That’s very achievable and the most viable option.
Not as it exists now. There are zero viable solutions for shipping or air travel, for example.
Achievable yes, but not in any near time frame, so we HAVE to look at other mitigating options as well.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a very poor strategy.
Building more nuclear WOULD help. Yes, it has a huge capital front cost, and it takes a while to earn that back, but then it keeps paying.
The whole point of allowing these localized monopolies on power, is because power benefits from economy of scale and nuclear, right now, is the pinnacle of that. Large up front cost but also a solid, continual return that doesn't rely on outside factors.
The NS Savannah was a working civilian nuclear ship. We can just do that
“The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”
I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.
When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.
You are quoting "The majority of studies..." but I am not sure where you are pulling that from.
I have an issue with that quote since it is absolutely wrong about shipping and air trasport.
Edit:
And furthermore, you can't just abandon a significant sector and expect to pick it up later on.
There is tremendous momentum in each sector and to just focus on one, at the behest of others, is a TERRIBLE idea. Each sector does not exist in a vacuum. They all have supporting industries that also need to be developed and planned out. To put everything into renewables, is irresponsible at best. If we don't subsidize it all all. Then it will be a stillborn process that will never see anything outside an office.
Great, we now have 100% renewables, but we've had elevated CO2 for decades and now we have to spin up carbon capture from scratch because someone had the great idea to drop everything else. So add another 20 years for that to work up. We don't have that luxury.