this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
97 points (98.0% liked)

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

5246 readers
394 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Large hydropower is not counted as “Renewable” by California. We have renewable portfolio targets, and we import a lot of wind power from the north to meet the standards.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can argue about how green it is, considering its impact on ecosystems, but how did they end at the conclusion that it's not renewable?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

We already had so much of it, the renewable targets would have been too easy? Most dams use huge amounts of concrete or earth moving, and there’s no carbon-free way to do that work at this time? Policy makers didn’t want to incentivize any dam construction?

These are guesses. It’s probably in some kind of records. Sometimes laws even explain the rationale in the beginning with a bunch of “whereas” statements. But I’m too lazy to look it up right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

California power is awesome. Until recently, it was almost all nuclear. Those reactors take 6 hours to spin up and wind down. As demand went up for the day, they'd supplement their systems by buying power from BC. As the demand went down at night faster than the nuclear could wind down, they would pay BC to take their excess. You need to use you excess load or you blow up your grid. So BC was making money providing AND taking power at different points throughout the day.

Now, thanks largely to solar, California is generating so much power they have to pay people to take the excess during peak hours. Such an incredibly fast transformation. They still buy a bit at night, but California is quickly freeing itself from dependence on other systems.

So while they still import a bit of Hydro power, they'll be fully autonomously renewable really soon.