this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
11 points (86.7% liked)

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

6322 readers
602 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
11
With respect to nuclear energy, in what ways will it help alleviate the climate crisis and where will it not? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 days ago by SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nuclear always comes up when discussing the energy transition but renewables seem to be a much more popular consideration. Can nuclear energy help us towards a greener future or is it a long dead dream?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the US context, it is nice that we already have a lot of nukes operational. They provide like 30% of our energy and it is cleaner energy than fossil fuels.

But nukes are uneconomical when compared to wind and solar. They are slow to build and they tend to cost way more than projections. Wind and solar deployments are predictable and don’t have overruns.

So keep the nukes we have, but invest in more solar and wind

[–] DirtPuddleMisfortune@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

I find it ironic you are calling nuclear energy / nuclear powerplants "nukes". In my understanding nukes go boom. But English is not my main language, so it's probably that.