Hugohase

joined 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Yes, but energy density doesn't matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Thats a chicken/egg peoblem. If enough renewables are build the storage follows. In a perfect world goverments would incentivice storage but in an imperfect one problems have to occure before somebody does something to solve them. Anyway, according to lazard renewables + storage are still cheaper than NPPs.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (93 children)

Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Come on, don't be that guy...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Maybe you should read up on the topic and not just repeat baseless falsehoods.

That would be so nice...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Propagandist propagandizes.

More news at 11

[–] [email protected] 88 points 2 months ago (7 children)

It wasn't even an accident, he just killed a cyclist because he wanted to drive on a bicycle path without being, rightfully, called out for it. Bonus points for having his child in his car.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economic Sciences derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.[40]

Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[41] He explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".[40]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

No idea what you mean and not gonna read the ipcc report now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ok, bask in your american exceptionalism if you please.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Those data centers would soon be somewhere else due to... economics. And even if not, wouldn't be significant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Maybe if you start heating your homes by burning car tires in your gardens. But otherwise, no. You are already so far behind the curve that economics really don't allow CO2 emission increases on a global significant level.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/3086311

In the first five months of 2024, 87% of the electricity consumed in Portugal was green

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/worldnews by /u/randolphquell on 2024-06-03 14:23:58+00:00.

 

cross-posted from: https://futurology.today/post/1609274

Future energy demand does not need new fossil fuels, study says

Energy groups did not need to develop any new oil, gas and coal projects to meet future demand, an academic paper says, at a time when rhetoric over the role of fossil fuel companies in addressing climate change is escalating.

Researchers from University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development studied projected future global demand for oil and gas production, and for coal- and gas-fired power generation, under a range of scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

In all of the scenarios, which are all taken from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, existing fossil fuel capacity is enough to meet the world’s energy demands, it concludes.

The study is the first peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal to argue that no more fossil fuel projects are needed as renewable energy sources take up the demand, and expands on the findings produced in 2021 by the International Energy Agency.

The IEA said energy groups must stop all new oil and gas exploration projects if the world was to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and limit global warming to 1.5C degrees.

Greg Muttitt, a senior associate at IISD, said the research drew on “a large range of scientific evidence . . . But its message to governments and fossil fuel companies is very simple: There is no room for new fossil fuel projects in a 1.5°C-aligned world.”

“Achieving the Paris Agreement goals means governments need to stop issuing permits for new fossil fuel exploration, production or power- generation projects,” said Muttitt.

Almost 200 countries agreed to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels as part of the Paris Agreement in 2015, with many countries setting targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

The oil and gas industry has repeatedly pushed back against the IEA, including its forecast that demand for fossil fuels will peak before 2030.

“I don’t think they’re remotely right,” the chief executive of oil producer Chevron told the Financial Times last October. “You can build scenarios, but we live in the real world, and have to allocate capital to meet real world demands.”

Last December, countries reached an agreement as part of the UN’s COP28 climate summit to transition away from fossil fuels in an attempt to reach global net zero emissions by 2050.

The text asks all countries to set “ambitious” emissions targets over the next two years that take into account their fossil fuel use, in an effort to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The rise in temperature is at least 1.1C.

A cut in greenhouse gas emissions by about half by 2030 is required to limit warming, with the burning of fossils fuels being the biggest contributor. However, according to scientists at Nasa, emissions from fossil fuel are still rising. Emissions rose 1.1 per cent in 2023 compared with 2022.

1
Electricity Live Map (app.electricitymaps.com)
 

Nice tool to get an idea of different electricity markets.

view more: next ›