this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
56 points (100.0% liked)

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

155 readers
26 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
 

Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I'm incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dumdum666@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

With the price drop in renewables it just doesn’t make much sense economically

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

they have been pledging a lot of stuff for the last 30 or more years.

ill believe anything when i see it heppening.

[–] sonori 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.

[–] b9chomps 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.

I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked random cointries and found several reactors that have been under construction for way longer.

I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant being build in that time frame. Do you have examples?

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

The Soviets did that in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia#Reactors_in_operation

Also Japan did it as well with the BTR-4 design a bit later. That was the reactor type which had a melt down in Fukushima.

[–] sonori 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Offhand Wolseong in Korea brought thier two new reactors online in five and seven years, and have a nationwide average of six years. Qinshan in China brought two new Candean reactors online in four and five years, with a nationwide average of five years aswell.

As the other commenter mentioned Japan has systemicly built reactors in four years, though Fukushima 2 does well to demonstrate the danger or just running old American designs forever given how much better the modern reactors at the plant did than the older ones.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How short sighted. In a couple decades the same countries will try to find ways to unpollute their ground and water from the radiation leaking from all the wastw they produce

[–] luciole 6 points 1 year ago

Nuclear is far from perfect, but countries have been exploiting it successfully and safely. France has been using it for 50 years, 70% of their households' energy comes from it and it didn't turn the country into a toxic wasteland.

[–] Xenxs@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

We have seen your previous pledges, we all know these are hollow promises.