this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
102 points (96.4% liked)

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

5282 readers
542 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
102
Biomass power station produced four times emissions of UK coal plant, says report (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jafffacakelemmy@fedia.io 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

the article states that drax burning wood produces four times the CO2 of radcliffe burning coal; however it fails to mention how much electricity was produced by each one. i expect better from the guardian, but we didn't get it in this report.

[–] elgordino@fedia.io 14 points 3 months ago

Wow you’re right. It’s not talking about CO2 per MWh it’s talking about total CO2 per year. What a completely useless comparison.

Also the source of the C in the CO2 is important, rendering this comparison even more pointless.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also, trees capture CO2 when growing, so it's not just emitting it like carbon or petrol, it's a cycle.

[–] Crismus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Tree farming is very good, because the trees are harvested after their peak carbon sequestration is past. Young trees clean up more CO2 than wild trees.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good point. It looks like

Drax Power Station

Its generating capacity of 3,906 megawatts (MW),

Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station

the station has a capacity of 2,000 MW

[–] theMechanic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

That is a good start, clearly crazy is nearly 2x larger in nameplate. However, it also depends on how often they are deployed.

Being that one is consider clean power it is likely dispatched more often. That would result in more numbing hours which would make the difference between the two even bigger.

I saw this article in a different sub and it seems to be just sensationalist header to drive traffic