22
Is nuclear energy the answer? Probably not (www.theclimatebrink.com)
submitted 7 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tinwhiskers@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, you'd need to produce 2 nuclear power stations per week to keep up with growth in solar alone. It's going to have a part to play, but it's ever slipping into irrelevance.

this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
22 points (76.2% liked)

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

5212 readers
661 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
silence7@slrpnk.net