this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
400 points (93.7% liked)

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

5441 readers
300 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
[email protected]
400
The California grid ran on 100% renewables with no blackouts or cost rises for a record 98 days (electrek.co)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by kalkulat to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The period occured in 2024 between late winter and early summer. "Compared to the same period in 2023, solar output in California is up 31%, wind power is up 8%, and batteries are up a staggering 105%."

Link to the study PDF mentioned in the article: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/25-CaliforniaWWS.pdf

One of the paper's cowriters is Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the atmosphere/energy program at Stanford University.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The exorbitant PG&E charges are usually "delivery charges," not the "generation charge" iirc. So we're paying reasonable rates for cheap, clean energy, but we're getting charged out the ass for getting the electricity to our home.

It sucks either way, but charging for delivery sucks more because on top of it all if we run solar and sell back to the grid we only get the generation charge (which is minimal). At least, that's my understanding

we don't currently have a home solar installation.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

It makes sense that you don't get paid a delivery charge when selling electricity. You aren't paying for any transmission lines, transformers, or any of the other expenses needed to keep the electricity grid stable and functioning.