Climate change

2,159 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, dstanners said:

Who looks at that guy, and thinks: "yes, that's the man I want running my country"?

You don’t have to be a very astute judge of character to discern that he loves to listen to the sound of his bloviating, and he lies through his teeth.  His body language is oh, so transparent.  But sadly, in all fairness, we have no shortage of such assh***s on this side of the pond either, as well as the corresponding fools who elect them.  😒

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS this the end for Big oil, seems not

 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/big-oil-isn-t-losing-000000742.html

 

"Even though Tesla remains the world's leading EV manufacturer with 14.2% market share and an even more commanding 65.8% share in the U.S., the rest of the pack is rapidly closing in. Bank of America has predicted that Tesla's share of U.S. EV sales will fall from 78% in 2018 to around 20% in 2024, while IHS Markit sees Tesla with less than 15% of U.S. sales by 2027."

 

"Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that road fuel oil demand will peak in 2027, but it will take another decade for the impact of advancements to be materially felt. Emissions will almost halve by 2050, but the sector will still be nowhere near net zero. In the best-case scenario, by the 2050s, fossil-derived road fuel demand will fall below levels last seen in the early 1970s. In this case, oil-related emissions will drop to 3.4 gigatons CO2 by 2050, down from almost 6.5Gt in 2019."

 

and while Germany refuses to go back to nuclear, then the electricity it generates with be based on burning brown coal, which is kinda like powering cars on petrol/diesel

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this interesting:

 

"German electricity by source in 2020":

 


  

Quote

 

 Wind: 131.69 TWh (27.2%)

 

  Brown coal: 81.94 TWh (16.9%)

 

  Nuclear: 60.9 TWh (12.6%)

 

  Natural gas: 59.08 TWh (12.2%)

 

  Solar: 50.7 TWh (10.5%)

 

  Biomass: 45.45 TWh (9.4%)

 

 Hard coal: 35.56 TWh (7.4%)

 

 Hydro: 18.27 TWh (3.8%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany


 

 

Over 50% renewables so still a way to go. It also depends on where you live, I have 100% Ökostrom.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Janx Spirit said:

I have 100% Ökostrom.

 

Yes, but that's just where the electricity company buys it from. If there is a brown coal plant down the road from you, it pushes electricity into the grid. Thinks of it like a big water pipe network. In goes the brown water. Somewhere in northern Germany, in goes the green water from the offshore turbines. What comes out is at best a mix, but really you'll be getting whatever is closest to you. They might charge you for green, but if the coal station is next door, it's really coming from the coal power station, regardless of what you pay for.

 

You pay anyway a surcharge for green energy support, which they now start to move to fossil fuels, so I never did see the point of Okostrom, other than a marketing ploy.

 

I am guessing that nuclear figure is now a bit out of date, but yes, there is a lot more renewables needed if they are to hit the targets they set. Will be interesting to see what actually gets into the plans by the middle of the year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China prepares to test thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor

salt reactor

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

 

Basically they are 

 

- Safe than current generations of Nuclear

- They produce electricity at 1/10 the current cost of nuclear 

- They do not produce plutonium, so no nukes can be made from this process

- The half life before the radioactive waste is safe, is a faction of the current method of splitting the atom

 

 

By the way the 12 % from above from current reactors is due to be phased out at the end of the year, meaning we need to burn more coal and gas = more pollution

 

What not to like ???

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, yesterday said:

 

By the way the 12 % from above from current reactors is due to be phased out at the end of the year, meaning we need to burn more coal and gas = more pollution

 

What not to like ???

 

And we all knew it a the time too. Retort needed against 'Atomkraft nein danke'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Feed to cut cow methane emissions gets provisional nod in EU"

 

Quote

BRUSSELS, Nov 19 (Reuters) - A feed additive that reduces emissions of potent greenhouse gas methane from cattle could be the first of its kind to come to market in Europe after receiving a positive assessment on Friday from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

 

EFSA found that 3-nitrooxypropanol or Bovaer, made by Dutch speciality chemicals company DSM (DSMN.AS), cuts emissions in dairy cattle and was safe for the cows and for consumers drinking their milk.

...

DSM, which says emissions are reduced by between 20% and 35% without affecting production, described Bovaer as the result of a decade of scientific research and expressed hope that the Commission would approve it soon.

 

DSM has yet to market the additive, although it received approval from regulatory authorities in Brazil and Chile in September. It has since signed a development agreement with Brazil's JBS (JBSS3.SA), the world's largest meat processing company.

 

The additive works by suppressing enzymes that help break down grass and other fibrous plants and produce methane that cows belch out. DSM says the impact of its product on three cows was the equivalent of taking a family-sized car off the road.

 

Agriculture is the largest source of methane emissions caused by human activity, at 40%, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Livestock accounts for the vast bulk of that, with cattle leading the field.

 

Methane has 10 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time, meaning that reducing methane emissions can have a more rapid impact on the climate.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

Do they make it for humans?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

Do you consider Himself a ruminant? ;) 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists were caught by surprise last week after record-breaking temperatures were recorded in Antarctica, with temperatures reaching more than 40°C above average for three days.

The period of warm weather brought about a big change for weather stations in Antarctica, with areas in the east rising dramatically in temperature from the average daytime high temperature of around minus 53°C

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everywhere is east of Antarctica...

Or do they mean the bit of Antarctica nearest Asia, Africa or S.America ?

 

/pedantry off

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HH_Sailor said:

Everywhere is east of Antarctica...

Or do they mean the bit of Antarctica nearest Asia, Africa or S.America ?

 

Where is East Antarctica?

 

Everywhere is north of the south pole, and vice-versa. Oder?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Climate change: IPCC scientists report five ways to save the planet"

 

Quote

The dangers of climate change have been well reported for years. But what's had less attention is how the world could effectively tackle the issue.

 

Yesterday, UN scientists laid out a plan that they believe could help people avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures.

 

The report, by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), essentially calls for a revolution in how we produce energy and power our world.

...

1 - Coal is on the dole (again!)


The 63 dense pages of this IPCC report are littered with qualifications and dense footnotes.

 

But all the verbiage can't hide the scientists' central message. If the world wants to steer clear of dangerous warming, fossil fuels are toast.

...

2 - Pie in the sky gets real…


A few short years ago, the idea of a technological fix to climate change was generally seen as the preserve of the eccentric.

 

From spraying things into the atmosphere to cool the Earth to blocking out the Sun with space-based shields, various ideas were mocked, knocked and quickly forgotten.

 

But as the climate crisis has escalated and cutting carbon emissions has proven difficult, researchers have been forced to look again at the role of technology in both limiting and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

The idea of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has now gone fully mainstream with the endorsement of the IPCC in this latest report.

 

The scientists are blunt - keeping temperatures down won't really be possible without some form of removal, be it via trees or air filtering machines.

...

3 - Curbing demand is a secret weapon


One of the big differences with this report from previous releases is that social science features heavily.

 

This is mainly focussed on the ideas of reducing people's demand for energy in the areas of shelter, mobility and nutrition.

...

4 - Cooling the planet with cash…


Tackling climate change has often been delayed due to the perceived high-cost implications.

 

But that sense has changed in recent years as the financial toll of climate disasters has steadily climbed.

 

Now the IPCC are weighing in with some new guidance on the costs.

 

The bottom line is that transforming our world, won't (and please pardon the pun) cost the Earth.

...

5 - Eat the rich… or copy them?


There is renewed emphasis in this report on the outsized impact that richer people are having on the planet.

 

According to the IPCC, the 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions contribute up to 45% of consumption-based household greenhouse gas emissions.

In essence, the report says that the world's richest people are spending way too much of their money on mobility, including on private jets.

 

So you would think that this would make them good targets for greater taxation or other means of curtailing their emissions?

 

That may well be the case, but some IPCC authors believe the rich have other roles to play in helping the world towards net-zero.

 

"Wealthy individuals contribute disproportionately to higher emissions but they have a high potential for emissions reductions, whilst maintaining high levels of well-being and a decent living standard," said Prof Patrick Devine-Wright, an IPCC lead author from the University of Exeter.

 

"I think there are individuals with high socioeconomic status who are capable of reducing their emissions by becoming role models of low carbon lifestyles, by choosing to invest in low carbon businesses and opportunities, and by lobbying for stringent climate policies."

 

 

More over @ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60987614

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday (28 April), Delhi saw its hottest day in over a decade as temperatures reached a staggering 43.5C - and it's set to get even hotter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now