Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit a New High In 2020, Even With Pandemic Lockdowns (npr.org) 159
Despite a world economy that slowed significantly because of COVID-19, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record last year, putting the goal of slowing the rise of global temperatures "way off track," according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). NPR reports: The United Nations body said Monday that carbon dioxide had risen by more than the 10-year average in 2020 to 413.2 parts per million, despite a slight decrease in emissions due to the coronavirus pandemic. Methane and nitrous oxide, two other potent greenhouse gases, also showed increases, the WMO said in the latest issue of its Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. "At the current rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, we will see a temperature increase by the end of this century far in excess of the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5 to 2 C above preindustrial levels," WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said. "We are way off track," he said.
Taalas said the last time the Earth had a comparable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 3 million to 5 million years ago, when the average global temperature was 2 to 3 Celsius hotter and the sea level was 10 to 20 meters (32 to 65 feet) higher than today. The WMO says that only half of human-emitted carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans and land ecosystems. The other half remains in the atmosphere, and the overall amount in the air is sensitive to climate and land-use changes. Because carbon emissions increased in the last decade, even though there was a decrease last year due to reduced economic activity, atmospheric levels continued to increase progressively from the accumulation.
Taalas said the last time the Earth had a comparable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 3 million to 5 million years ago, when the average global temperature was 2 to 3 Celsius hotter and the sea level was 10 to 20 meters (32 to 65 feet) higher than today. The WMO says that only half of human-emitted carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans and land ecosystems. The other half remains in the atmosphere, and the overall amount in the air is sensitive to climate and land-use changes. Because carbon emissions increased in the last decade, even though there was a decrease last year due to reduced economic activity, atmospheric levels continued to increase progressively from the accumulation.
Another record? (Score:2)
I raise a Ford F-650 to celebrate 100 years of global warming
Re: Another record? (Score:2)
I bet you're pissed that you never seem to find parking in downtown. I mean, what good is a car if you still have to carry you shopping for miles just to reach your car, which you've been searching a parking spot for longer than it would've taken you to just drive by bus anyway.
Should've bought a Citroen C3 instead of your F-650 *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
Downtown Eureka has plenty of parking, no problem. If you're talking about downtown San Francisco or something, it makes more sense to park in a secured lot somewhere and walk/muni around no matter what kind of vehicle you drive.
oh well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We were told to use nuclear fission power or fail to lower CO2 emissions.
It sounds like UK and Japan are taking this seriously. The USA and Australia are a bit on the fence on it. France and Germany are fighting this with all indications so far that it will fail them, so it will take a change in political parties to get them on the right track.
There is no solution to the rising CO2 levels that does not include nuclear fission power. Windmills are optional. Solar power is optional. Hydroelectric power i
Re: oh wel, nuclear won't cut it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unicorns don't fly. If it looks like a horse and can fly, it's a Pegasus. I can't see why you would want to put one on a treadmill though.
Re: (Score:2)
Current nuclear fission isn't cost-effective. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to be modded down again [slashdot.org] by slashdots techno-romantic fission fans for bugging them with basic math, but nuclear fission as we know it isn't cost-effective. It only works if it is cross-funded by large amounts of tax payers money. And that's without pricing in the risk and an epic long-term waste problem we haven't solved yet(!). Given, feasibility of nuke-fission may change once energy prices rise and we can build TW or liquid salt reactors or some other fancy thing, but until that sort of thing is ready, nuclear fission isn't an option. That's a real shame and I wish it were different but that's the cold hard truth.
I totally get that some people want to try out new fission reactor types and they should get the support they need to do that if the math has a chance of working out. Until then wind and solar and saving energy is the way to go. We'll have to do it anyway because uranium is a limited fossil fuel itself. Let's fill the deserts with solar panels and get this change going. That's a very neat long-term solution right there. It's also Elon Musks prime strategy for solving the energy crisis and he is the smart guy that makes things happen, so I actually do trust his math on solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar do not work without natural gas backup.
False.
If you would say lets go with solar, wind and natural gas then I can agree with you.
Because you love fracking?
But wind and solar alone are useless because sometimes wind does not blow and sun does not shine.
Wind always blows somewhere. Sun generally shines somewhere, and when it doesn't power needs are much lower... except possibly for heating, which should a) be done with ground source heat pumps in those regions, greatly decreasing energy consumption and b) which need can and should be mitigated by insulation, which is a much more efficient plan than just using more gas and bleeding more heat energy.
And industry needs reliable power.
Renewables' output is extremely predictable, and even with battery storage win
Re: (Score:2)
"Wind always blows somewhere. Sun generally shines somewhere," that's an exceedingly stupid comment I hope your from some dinky little Euro country and do not know better.
If the wind blows and the sun shines on the western US power grid how does that help the eastern or Texas grid ?
That's an easy answer it doesn't the distance between the grids are to great to transfer power so natural gas is used as the backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it reduces the need for fossil fuels. So what if the sun doesn't shine at night? Does that mean literally all solar is useless even during the day? This stupid argument that sun and wind aren't always available just won't go away - the goal here is not to replace all possible fuel sources with only sun and wind all the time, day and night. The goal is to DIVERSIFY! Just like it's stupid to put all your retirement account into Facebook stocks, it's also stupid to put all your energy portfolio in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Texas grid is separate from the rest of the US only because of political reasons, the distance isn't that great an obstacle. For example, Rio de Janeiro gets power from a hydro plant about 1600 miles away. China has an UHV line that's over 2000 miles long... From the southernmost tip of Texas that would reach just about everywhere in the lower 48 (as well as the entirety of Central America). Apparently, it's been estimated that the longest distance that would be cost-effective for power transmission is
Re: (Score:2)
Wind always blows somewhere.
It does not matter if that somewhere is not connected to you with a reliable grid.
Sun generally shines somewhere, and when it doesn't power needs are much lower...
False. Peaks are during mornings and evenings when solar is weak.
except possibly for heating, which should a) be done with ground source heat pumps in those regions, greatly decreasing energy consumption and b) which need can and should be mitigated by insulation, which is a much more efficient plan than just using more gas and bleeding more heat energy.
I agree. But you still need electricity for heat pumps. You need less but the grid still needs to be reliable to keep your hose heated and fridge working. And grids are not cheap either. They add to the cost of renewables.
Renewables' output is extremely predictable, and even with battery storage wind and solar are cheaper than the other carbon-neutral* generation technologies.
Can you give me some reference for this? I have never seen a reference for wind/solar being cheaper over the scales of at least a month when th
Re: (Score:3)
You're talking about 100% solutions. Even fossil fuels were never a 100% energy source. Just diversify. If solar and wind can cover even 50% of energy needs that's a major win. No, they're not perfect, but if you want a perfect solution you're in very a very very long wait. Remember, In Texas last winter during their major outage, the wind and solar were still working just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be modded down again [slashdot.org] by slashdots techno-romantic fission fans for bugging them with basic math, but nuclear fission as we know it isn't cost-effective. ... Until then wind and solar and saving energy is the way to go. ...
I mean, you get modded down probably because what you're saying is trivially falsifiable. While I think Lazard's methodologies are sometime lacking, they aren't a bad resource at a glance for things like LCOE assumptions: https://www.lazard.com/perspec... [lazard.com]
Solar mixed with four hours of storage (behind the meter) at its cheapest estimate is more expensive than the LCOE estimate for nuclear fission plants at their most expensive. In front of the meter wholesale exposed PV+Storage is cheaper than nuclear by L
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting as AC as I've modded this thread.
Australia is NOT on the fence, Australia is taking action to reduce CO2 emissions.
To be clear, Australia's neo-Republican Federal govt is not, but the 6 states and two most important territories certainly are:
https://www.climateworksaustra... [climatewor...tralia.org]
Is it enough? Maybe... I certainly hope so.
So, Australia's govt is crap, but the individual states are not.
And by the time Australia has built nuclear power stations (an easy 15+ years) they'll produce power that while good for b
Re:oh well (Score:4, Informative)
The UK is using nuclear as pork for friends of the Tory Party. Japan still hasn't re-started many of its reactors since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, not least because on further inspection problems were discovered at many of them.
Guess which countries have shown they aren't really serious about climate change. Japan lobbied to get the scientific report toned down. The UK has had a number of failed schemes and is only committing tiny amounts of money to things like replacing gas boilers, a major source of CO2 here, with heat pumps.
Germany is at least getting on with a proper energy transition, and proving it can be done. France is trying its best to ditch nuclear because the taxpayers got fed up with the massive subsidies and bail-outs.
Re:oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is at least getting on with a proper energy transition, and proving it can be done.
Vladimir Putin thanks you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Germany is at least getting on with a proper energy transition, and proving it can be done. France is trying its best to ditch nuclear because the taxpayers got fed up with the massive subsidies and bail-outs.
Germany and its enrgiewende is a joke.
It reduced CO2 from electricity generation by 12%. Exactly the same amount as the USA in the same time period. Why? Because they both migrated to gas power plants. knowingly in the US, unknowingly in DE. this is between 2000-2017.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not finished yet, give it a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Please tell me what the grand plan is. I can't see it.
We don't have the luxury of time to experiment and fail anymore.
Wind will not produce more than 30% of installed capacity (on optimistic average, 50% peak).
Solar comes in at around 15%
All this is now backed by gas. (better than coal, yes)
So, we're talking an installed capacity/production ratio of 3:1
Material-wise, that doesn't sound wise.
Replacement time for both: About 20-30 years. Neither is currently recyclable. This is a slightly bogus argument a
The Western Countries (Score:2)
Second World Countries, primarily Russia, have not.
Third World Countries, primarily PRC China and India have not. A recent report said that China was opening a coal powered plant at the rate of one per months.
Re: (Score:2)
A recent report said that China
You shouldn't be reading this sort of xenophobe adjacent reporting. Remember;
China isn't as bad a green house gas emitter as the US,
but if they actually are then it ok because they're working on renewables,
and if that turns out to be fake or unworkable then it's your fault for consuming the stuff they make.
Re: (Score:2)
And despite these reductions, First World Countries still emit much more per capita compared to China and India.
Re: (Score:2)
And despite these reductions, First World Countries still emit much more per capita compared to China and India.
The climate does not care about per capita numbers. The climate does not give a rat's ass if it's 10 people or 10 billion people. The only number that matters to the climate is total emissions per political entity, which is the only way humans make changes to such numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate does not care I agree. But when trying to figure out who is doing an effort to fight climate change, I am looking at the per capita numbers. If everybody was emitting as little as the average Indian, we wouldn't be in trouble.
That's not the way it works (Score:2)
Because carbon emissions increased in the last decade, even though there was a decrease last year due to reduced economic activity, atmospheric levels continued to increase progressively from the accumulation.
The atmospheric CO2 level responds very quickly to input changes. Look at the seasonal effect on CO2 levels as seen at the Mauna Loa observatory [noaa.gov]. The sawtooth pattern is due to the difference in northern and southern hemisphere foliage growth. There is no sign of a long time scale damping or second order effects that cause this sort of overshoot. When the input goes down, the dependent variable (atmospheric concentration) turns downward immediately.
I guess we need to find some other input to the system tha
Re: (Score:2)
..."I guess we need to find some other input to the system that we seem to have overlooked.
Volcanoes. (Not a joke)
In that case, just ignorant and wrong. Humans produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism, and we monitor volcanic emissions quite closely worldwide so we would know if this changed.
2030 (Score:2)
Countries that pledged to reach peak CO2 emission mostly only pledged to reach it on 2030.
So what would one expect from now to 2030? Of course CO2 emission will continue to rise worldwide! This will only continue until 2030, then we will have to see if those pledged would be fulfilled, or (more likely) would be postponed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ... Any country that actually plans to meet its 2030 target would be reducing emissions monthly in a way that indicated they might succeed.
Canada, for instance, or at least our Dear Leader Trudeau, committed ~ 4 months ago to reduce our emissions by 45% by 2030. To meet that we would need to reduce emissions by nearly .5% monthly. Actual emissions change in 4 months: who the hell knows. But certainly not 2%.
To put it mildly, 2030 is Very Soon Now. Nothing big happens in 8 years. It's a joke.
Of course,
What should we do about it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another Slashdot article about the problem of rising CO2 emissions without mention of solutions. We were told how to solve this problem, we only need to listen to the people that took the time to study what will work and what will not. We should probably listen to Dr. David MacKay, he was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, he was a professor of physics and engineering, and knew a few things about how to process data. He told the UK government that they need to build nuclear fission power plants and sequester carbon. He told the government this in very simple arithmetic, and backing up his claims with real world data.
I can hear it now, but what about the money it takes to build these nuclear fission power plants? And the time they take to build? Would not windmills and solar power be cheaper and easier? Dr. MacKay told the UK government that if they don't build nuclear power plants then they will fail to meet their energy needs and fail to lower CO2 emissions.
I expect people to still protest. They will bring up concerns about weapon proliferation, radiation leaks, terrorists attacks on nuclear power plants. These do not factor in to the decision to use nuclear power or not because the UK needs nuclear power or they will not have the energy to sustain their economy.
Still people will not get the message, they will talk of an intercontinental "smart grid", with windmills out in the North Atlantic, solar PV and solar thermal projects in North Africa, hydroelectric dams, pumped hydro storage, grid scale batteries, rooftop PV, "agri-voltaics", biomass fuels, and electric vehicles. Electric cars, electric planes, electric ferries, electric trains, electric farm and constriction equipment, electric mining trucks that make more energy than they consume by hauling materials down form the mountain top mine. They talk of storing energy as heat, compressed air, hydrogen, and weights that are spun or lifted. That might be helpful but it does not rid the UK of the need for nuclear power.
If the UK does not produce nuclear fission power domestically then they will have to import it from nations like France, Spain, and Germany. There is no future in which the UK meets their energy supply needs without nuclear power. Because of the politics and economics of importing energy there will be a preference for this nuclear power to be produced domestically. Large undersea power cables into and out of the UK may for a while provide plenty of energy from wind and solar power into the UK but in time that flow of electricity will reverse. These North African nations will take on the wealth from selling energy to build schools, factories, homes, farms, hospitals, and more. These nations will find this energy more valuable to keep than sell. They will likely use this to produce products for export. This can be a varieties of foods, clothing, metals, fertilizers, synthesized fuels, carbon free steels and aluminum alloys. These nations will then become dependent on nuclear power from UK or have to develop the technology domestically.
What Dr. David MacKay discovered was not just an energy plan for UK but for every nation on the planet. He showed that while some nations may not need nuclear fission power as desperately as UK they will need nuclear fission power. Some nations will need nuclear fission power far more than UK. Nuclear power will be part of a mix of energy sources. These nations will find wind power is optional. solar power is optional. Hydro power is optional. But nuclear fission power is not optional. Safe, sustainable, clean, low CO2, reliable energy means nuclear fission. Any objections to this only means that some issues will have to be addressed as nuclear power comes to these nations, not that they can be barred from having nuclear power. Some nations may need safeguards to prevent weaponizing the nuclear reactors. Denying them nuclear power means they will fail to meet the nation's energy needs and/or fail to meet the n
Re: What should we do about it? (Score:2)
Which Western country has been able to build a nuclear plant under a decade from breaking ground? Hell they seem hard pushed doing it under 2 decades.
Re: What should we do about it? (Score:2)
Lately I mean.
Re shill: nuclear isn't safe, clean, cheap or soon (Score:2)
Nuclear isn't safe, it isn't clean, it isn't cheap and it won't come soon. It could be unicorns on treadmills but if it isn't safe, clean, cheap and soon it won't fly. Battery backed solar, wind or pumped hydro is all of these things. But you keep on shilling.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nuclear isn't safe,
Safer than swimming pools, in total number of accident-related deaths.
> it isn't clean,
Ah, it is clean in the sense "No CO2 emitted" The waste is a mess. But Oklo shows us that shoving nuclear waste underground is a possible solution for millions of years.
> it isn't cheap and it won't come soon.
This is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nuclear isn't safe,
Safer than swimming pools, in total number of accident-related deaths.
You don't get to tally up the final number of deaths until the waste has been rendered safe. You're counting your chickens prematurely there, sport. Same bullshit math as all the other nuclear playboys.
> it isn't clean,
Ah, it is clean in the sense "No CO2 emitted"
You are ignoring lifecycle emissions, nuclear's are frankly piss-poor due to a combination of the massive construction projects that they represent and the fact that uranite is the least concentrated ore we mine. And SMRs are not going to fix it because they are not going to happen. Per-unit costs around comm
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to tally up the final number of deaths until the waste has been rendered safe. You're counting your chickens prematurely there, sport. Same bullshit math as all the other nuclear playboys.
Well aren't you stupid. Used fuel(nuclear waste) has caused zero deaths ever. Zero deaths ever. It also becomes exponentially less dangerous overtime with all of the highly radioactive isotopes completely decaying in the first 10 years(that's why we keep it in water for 10 years).
Again stupid. Used fuel has harmed zero people ever. Zero.
Fossil fuels and biofuels kill 8 million people annually, yet you are worried about something that has harmed zero people ever? Your priorities are fucked up. Ju
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't get to tally up the final number of deaths until the waste has been rendered safe
Yes I do. And I provided an example of why I do. Oklo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Safe is when it is buried underground. Barring transport, that is easy.
> You are ignoring lifecycle emissions, nuclear's are frankly piss-poor due to a combination of the massive construction projects that they represent and the fact that uranite is the least concentrated ore we mine. And SMRs are not going to fix it becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Battery backed solar isn't cheap as well.
Wind power is cheap when wind blows. Otherwise it's price is infinite since you cannot buy wind power when wind is not blowing.
Not emitting CO2 is going to be very expensive. That price increase will make nuclear price competitive.
Re: Re shill: nuclear isn't safe, clean, cheap or (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have solutions, the problem is people like you shilling for the nuclear industry are just wasting our time with a failed technology that nobody, especially you, wants to pay for.
It's always the same copy/paste crap from you. Dr. MacKay says we have to do it, nuclear would be wonderful if we just flushed some more billions down the crapper, nothing else can possibly work blah blah. Meanwhile the world is getting on with installing renewable capacity and we need to go all-in on that, rather than farting ar
Re: (Score:2)
Prominent climate scientists agree, nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change [theguardian.com].
"The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap."
"The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking
Re: (Score:2)
LOL "unrealistic technical assumptions" is pretty much what all the nu-nuclear companies promising to solve all the decades old problems are built on.
Re: (Score:2)
If The 100% renewable scenarios are unrealistic, then we need to rely on nuclear, even if challenges with that technology remain.
"Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide."
"Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them."
This is according to climate scientists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley..
Re: (Score:2)
We're doomed (Score:2)
News at 11
Re: We're doomed (Score:2)
Yep, we're screwed. Time to sell the Tesla and get F-250 instead, we're doomed either way.
Re: (Score:2)
an F-250 has shitty low payload. I had to get a Ram 4500 to tow my fifth wheel camper.
What's the GVWR on that camper? Could you have gotten a lighter one with the same square footage? And as an aside, what year is it and who made it?
But to diesel's credit, I still get 12mpg pulling it as long as it's flat. That's better than your average full size SUV will get pulling a U-Haul trailer.
That's the kind of mileage I get from my ten ton bus. Granted, it's got a diesel (ISC 250)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.kz-rv.com/products... [kz-rv.com]
Scroll over to the right where the long ones are. 16000 lb GVWR. And a huge wind drag as well. 13' 6" high. There is a certain bridge in one of the Carolinas that you really need to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2021 F350 SRW 4x4 7.3 gas can tow only 15k, but the 6.7 diesel can do 20k GVWR even with the 3.31s. (The F250 with the 6.7 only makes 15,200.)
Of course the lockdowns are irrelevant (Score:2)
Industrial sources only paused briefly if that, and that's where most of the CO2 comes from. Shipping continued unabated, as evinced by cargo ships piled up at ports which did shut down, and most of the transportation pollution comes from there. So why would the rise abate? That don't make no sense. People kept getting food from out, but it came from a doordash or whatever instead of them going out to get it. Instead of walking around their neighborhood, people went further afield so they could reach less p
Re: (Score:2)
So why would the rise abate?
I recall that the lack of traffic during lockdown led to a noticeable improvement in air quality in cities. This would be related to particulates and oxides of nitrogen, rather than CO2, but no doubt CO2 from road transport went down proportionally. Presumably, goods transport by road continued while many people were furloughed or working from home, so the effect was due to reduced passenger transport.
People kept getting food from out, but it came from a doordash or whatever instead of them going out to get
Re: (Score:2)
I recall that the lack of traffic during lockdown led to a noticeable improvement in air quality in cities.
Right, but again, transport in cities isn't where most of the CO2 comes from.
People kept getting food from out, but it came from a doordash or whatever instead of them going out to get it.
That is not my experience.
It's not mine either, but so what? I know I'm in the minority. Not to mention I was never locked down, I got a job with a place that never shut down right at the beginning of this whole thing. I've been working the whole time. Very little has changed for me, except some mask-wearing, and prices going up.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but again, transport in cities isn't where most of the CO2 comes from.
That is very true. I was showing that cutting road transport had an immediate noticeable effect on the environment. This might encourage the idea that we should cut down on using ICE-driven transport, which would probably help.
I would imagine intercity transport is a much bigger contributor to CO2 than traffic in cities, but you don't see the pollution, because it is dispersed rather than concentrated.
I heard an interview with an Australian industrialist (can't remember his name) pointing out that it is big
Re: (Score:2)
He is putting money into low CO2 steel production, based on hydrogen, I think.
Yeah, the problem with that is that most hydrogen is still produced through steam reformation of natural gas, and increasing natural gas output is predicated upon fracking, so it's clusterfuckery all the way down. It's a nifty technology, with the hydrogen bonding to atmospheric oxygen and leaving behind the carbon to enrich the iron into steel, but it's not going to save (or even really help) "the planet" (read: biosphere) until we stop the polluting forms of hydrogen production.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. The hydrogen is used to react with with the oxygen in the iron ore, producing iron and water instead of the iron and carbon dioxide produced in the traditional coke-based methods. You still have to add carbon to make steel.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem with that is that most hydrogen is still produced through steam reformation of natural gas
That is true now, but obviously the intention is to use renewable means to generate hydrogen in the future. The two that I know about are electrolysis of water, using electricity from renewable sources, and fermentation of waste. I gather there are bacteria that emit hydrogen as a by-product of their metabolism.
When making steel, the big CO2 output is from smelting the ore. The ore is iron oxide, and you have to use chemistry to pull the oxygen off the iron. That usually involves heating iron ore with coke,
it's called feedback loop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, planet temperature and ice mass at poles is the main determinant of oceanic volume.
Ice melts -> more water in ocean
higher temperature of ocean -> water expands slightly. The ocean is really big. slight expansion will be felt.
CO2 PPM does affect temperature, so in finae it does affect ocean levels.
For oceans, atmospheric CO2 PPM is the main determinant of acidity, which has a direct effect on the ability of animals with shells to construct and maintain said shell.
Experiment for you: Take an egg (or
Door Dash, Grocery Delivery, and Amazon (Score:2)
It is a certainty they will go up (Score:2)
We have on record, even if they don't tell you, that China Russia and Saudi Arabia intend to cheat and increase both fossil fuel use and export at record levels, and that Australia will help them.
The same goes for Canada - look at the internal announcements for pipelines and LNG exports in addition to tar sands (bitumen).
All HEAVILY subsidized by taxpayers.
All paying ZERO or close to zero taxes.
The fix is in.
They don't care that 80 percent of their own citizens disagree with these actions, they depend on th
So correlation really isn't causation (Score:2, Troll)
For decades, the FUD crowd has been spouting off about how human activity is the cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Now, when there has been a lot less human activity, the gas levels are higher than ever. This just proves that correlation isn't causation and the climate is so much more complicated than any journalist or politician would have us believe. Beyond this, why is it that Americans have to fund other countries' climate change efforts? If Americans really cause the majority of greenhouse gas emi
Re:Records will continue to be broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Now the world population only grows because of an increasing life expectancy.
China has a fertility rate of 1.3 (2.1 are required for a stable population). Removing the 2-child limit only prevents the population from crashing down (if it has any effect at all). Chinas population will start declining within the next few years (https://www.scmp.com/eco
Re: (Score:2)
Now the world population only grows because of an increasing life expectancy.
Not really, or at least not mostly.
The world population is growing today not because we're having more kids but because it grew over the past 70 years. Basically, the current generations of 60+, 40-60, etc. are smaller than the youngest couple of generations. The young generations aren't getting any larger, but as they age into the older brackets we're "filling out" the demographic structure. By 2050 or so, the oldest generation alive (barring increases in life expectancy) will be people born after the
Re: (Score:2)
At least records like this. We have more than doubled the world population in the past 50 years (3.9 billion additions). China and India alone have contributed 1.45 billion of that (over 1/3), and China just removed the 2-child limit. What do we expect? It takes a lot more spewing of CO2 to sustain a doubling of the population.
Uncontrolled population growth would be bad but for CO2 maybe per capita emissions [worldometers.info] are relevant. Also so many of the world's manufactured goods come from China, we're effectively off-shoring our carbon emissions to there.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing fingers where pollution is increasing vs. decreasing is a bad thing. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
When fusion arrives. And jungles are left to thrive and grow again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But why nuclear when renewable is cheaper, safer, better?
https://www.rechargenews.com/t... [rechargenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With Solar and Wind becoming a much cheaper form of energy, It would be good to see how well a safer energy production can be produced before we go back to Nuclear.
The issue of Nuclear is the long term infrastructure that is needed to support it. We every few years switch from politicians who want more controlling regulations, making Nuclear more expensive, to politicians who want to get rid of all these regulations making it more dangerous.
As someone who community has had industrial water pollution hit our
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many records we will break before the antinuclear idiots realize they have been wrong for 5 decades.
As the nuclear idiots are completely deranged these days, where it is reliably _known_ that nuclear is the worst, most expensive, least useful way to produce energy in a carbon-neutral way, this is never going to happen. But you dinosaurs will eventually die out and then we can be finally done with your stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Antinuclear idiots" are a strawman. Protestors and environmentalists don't keep nuclear plants from being built, the cost does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 15 days to slow the temperature increases... (Score:2)
I was homeschooled a fair part of my life. I am more informed in science and philosophy than probably the 80 percentile of Americans. It took me awhile because indoctrination can be a bitch but the fact that I have independent learning means I can assimilate more information, easier.
How about you go back to misunderstanding but hey, I hear that's a hip cliche.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure your mother told you your smarter than 80% of the world, don't believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother also taught me: "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". But this is the internet where all the smartasses attempt to knock everyone else down a peg. Great job Brad -- I hope your mother is proud of you too.
PS. I certainly have some good stories about the lack of use of intelligence within my family on part of my mother but I doubt you want to hear those stories or believe them if heard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You skipped the spelling and grammar parts of school it seems. Corrections follow:
'I was homeschooled a fair part...' should be 'I was homeschooled for a fair part..."
'... than probably the 80 percentile of Americans' should be '... than probably 80 percent of Americans'.
'It took me awhile...' should be 'It took me a while...'.
'...I hear thats a hip cliche' should be '...I hear thats a hip clique'.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't skip them, just didn't value them.
1) "Never memorize something that you can look up." Since intelligence is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills which are then applied, we also have to consider the real value of such knowledge. You understood what I was saying but you wanted to be pedantic. Despite being up modded for such a comment, this doesn't make you intelligent and it doesn't disprove my intelligence, it just re-affirms the false conclusion that being a grammar na-zi on an internet for
Re: (Score:2)
And pray tell, what are these solutions that we have now?
In 2013 (I haven't checked since) a solar panel installed in Europe, if manufactured in china, wouldn't even break carbon neutrality over its 30y lifetime.
Most hydro that could be done has already been done.
Electricity storage isn't a solved problem for the scale we'd need.
Density of metal ore in mines is falling, meaning more energy is needed to mine the same quantity of say, copper.
I really am looking for a solution, but keep hitting brick walls eve
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies, got it slightly wrong. That was for france, not for europe. France is special, as they have many nukes, and are already pretty much emission free in electricity generation. Poland/Germany will have completely different timescales.
Wind will never exceed a production greater than 50% of installed wind capacity (Or at least that has never happened for western europe -- common weather patterns), and the material requirements of wind turbines is simply ridiculous. (rare earths etc..)
In Spain and Germa
Re: (Score:2)
Costs are highly relevant because we can't bankrupt ourselves in this process.
We really need to do more to exploit the North Sea for wind power. There is a lot of area where wind turbines could go and provide 24/7 power for Europe. With some storage they are still cheaper than nuclear, and lower emission, and lower death rate.
Wind turbine blade recycling is an issue we need to sort out. Compared to what we are facing though, it's something we can do relatively easily. As the tech matures it will become poss
Re: (Score:2)
covid showed us that $$ aren't connected to reality, and that it really isn't an issue.
Yes, a giant crash might be incoming now, but it will still be the consequence of some kind of physical limit we hit.
Don't know about the North Sea. Salt, corrosion, hard location for repairs... Viability what? 20 years?
Still think building a few nukes would be easier and more maintainable in the long run.
> Compared to what we are facing though, it's something we can do relatively easily.
That is a yes from me. But we'r
Re: (Score:2)
Well a modern ship has a design lifetime of around 25-30 years so clearly that's not a major impediment to something being viable. Lots of jobs created too.
Re: (Score:2)
This really piqued my interest.
I'm not terribly familiar with wind turbines, etc....and it had not occurred to me that the blades would "wear out".
What causes them to wear out? Friction from dirt? Bird strikes? I'm curious.
Also, what are these things made of? I'dh read on other posts that rather than recycling them, they are being taken somewhere and buried?
I'm curious what these are made of that doesn't allow them to simply be repaired/ren
Re: (Score:2)
The blades can get damaged or worn, but generally they don't wear out so much as become obsolete. As turbines have been getting bigger and the blades more efficient the old ones have been discarded. As the technology matures there will be more of a supply of used blades that can be re-used with new hubs.
The only other issue is transport, because they are large, but again as the market matures and the number of turbines increases it's getting easier. It's also likely that with large wind farms they will be r
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the info!
Re: (Score:2)
The blades are made of fiber glass + epoxy resin, and do wear out, but at least there is attempt being made to recycle them
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite interesting, but what exactly "wears them out"?
They're just turning in the wind....so, what "wears" them?
Does this wear cause them to not catch wind and turn?
Re: (Score:2)
> I would have thought the generator mechanisms would be the troublesome part that would have to be swapped out from time to time.
Lubricants. half a tonne of fossil-based lubricants per turbine. Might eventually be replaced by plant-based lubes. Unknown for now.
If I may recommend: Look up
- Vaclav Smil to get a grasp of the enormity of the issues.
- Phillipe Bihouix for a detailed look on materials and their usage. (Phillipe Bihouix - The age of low tech. The only thing I found in English)
And go on from th
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to rely on the government for your electricity needs?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. Nuclear relies on heavy subsidy and government support. We should let the market decide.
Re: (Score:2)
we can't afford to wait for nuclear. We need solutions NOW, at a price that won't scare off governments, and with technology that can be exported anywhere in the world.
Fastest decarbonization efforts in world history involved nuclear energy(France and Sweden). Seriously you dumbfuck. Do facts just go in one ear and out the other?