this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
103 points (92.6% liked)

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

5301 readers
816 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
[email protected]
103
The world’s largest direct carbon capture plant just went online (www.engadget.com)
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

Has anyone done the math and figured out if these things are more efficient than trees? I have my doubts but I'm also a pleb so idk how to compare them.

[–] MagnumDovetails 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I haven’t done the math but I studied a lot energy stuff for my degree. I can say for sure that’s it’s a hell of a lot more money and work than just reducing emissions in the first place. The below comment is accurate, if cynical; I knew someone who works on it in the states. You collect a bunch of co2 (using energy), then compress it (with energy), then ship it (yep diesel trucks), to salt caves where it is pumped (with energy) into the empty salt lined cave where the pressure causes the salt to sort of seal in a partial melt from the pressure. And hope we don’t accidentally frack it all back out. Needless to say I think it’s a waste of technology, money, and political will that’d be better spent on a plethora of other options.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Here in Iceland, where this is located, we produce more green energy than we consume and can't store that energy, and the carbon is pumped straight into the basalt below which absorbs it. I think doing it here is a decent way to do research on improving the technology.

[–] JJROKCZ 3 points 6 months ago

Yea it’s a good tool in places that have unlimited energy sources nearby, like geothermal or hydroelectric

load more comments (7 replies)