257
Climate Rule
(sh.itjust.works)
Now the fun part: guess the y-axis
log(something)?
log(log(something))?
Annually (Gt/a) or total (Gt).
Annual, since there are occasional drops
Makes sense. We haven't yet made it since the great plague, I guess, to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
I hope I get spectator mode after I die so that I can watch the climate wars.
This is unironically something I'd love to do. Not just to see what humanity will be like in a thousand years (if they're still around). I want to watch the sun blow up, galaxies merge, and black holes die. Spectator mode with fast forward, basically.
This is the type of afterlife I want to believe in.
It fucking stuns me that we still use coal in this day and age.
Honestly, better than gas. Like, yah, natural gas has lower co2 per unit of power at the power plant, but there’s methane leaking all along the supply chain, a green house gas 40 times more potent than Co2.
between 5-10% of the methane that comes out of a well ends up leaking somewhere along the line. To make the heating effect even break even with coal the leak rate would have to be closer to 1%.
Not advocating to keep burning coal, just saying that what we’ve been replacing it with is worse. I’d rather we keep a coal plant open and wait for an opportunity to replace with with a non-carbon emitting power source than build a shiny new gas plant that’s going to be kept around for at least 20 years.
Ng has half the CO2 and pretty much eliminates the others like NOx, SOx, PM, etc. Yes leaking can be an issue but there's obvious incentive to not have leaks, you can place power plants close to the ng source, etc. Coal can never be clean.
Natural gas can never be clean ether, and the cost of sealing up the supply chain is more expensive than just drilling more, some states have tried to put in laws to set a minimum leak rate and natural gas companies lobbied to prevent the bills from passing. Far from the first example of natural gas companies lobbying against laws that would cut in to their profits.
Natural gas as a bridge fuel was a distraction to divert the public away from actual solutions. It’s worse for climate change than coal is and plenty of in-depth reports, papers, and research bear this out.
I think that's bad faith to talk as if coal and ng are the same level of dirty (oh you just come out and say it's worse lol), so I'm out. Coal is ludicrously dirty. Just ridiculous. You have no idea. Even coal mining releases methane, which is intentionally vented.
It’s bad faith to try and move the goal post and act like this conversation was about anything but heating effect and climate change.
It is a fact that natural gas (read methane) infrastructure and power generation has a greater heating impact than coal.
Edit: want to be very clear here, I’m not sayin coal is clean. I’m not saying it is good to live next to a coal plant. I’m not saying build more coal plants.
I’m saying, don’t replace coal with natural gas. Put in solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro electric, ANYTHING but natural gas. If none of that is possible, then leave the damn coal plant until it is possible. Locking our selves in to 20~30 years of gas is basically guaranteeing a catastrophic climate disaster.
It is a fact that natural gas (read methane) infrastructure and power generation has a greater heating impact than coal.
Source?
There is a lot of methane and other gases leaking out of coal too.
Natural gas is 95% methane. Coal is a fraction of a fraction of a percent methane. When coal leaks, it ends up as a bunch of rocks on the side of a rail track. When natural gas infrastructure leaks, it dumps Megatons of methane into the atmosphere. The research and reporting on this topic are clear, natural gas has a significantly higher heating impact than coal, with no doubt.
Natural gas as a “bridge fuel” was just as much a lie as “clean coal”, a PR campaign to support lobbyists in their efforts to prevent regulation.
Also from bare black coal gases are lost during transportation and storage as it is not done in air tight tanks. It's not about a brikett of coal lying around somewhere.
The bridge fuel makes at least somewhat sense, as the infrastructure for gas can also be used for handling and using products from power to gas processes, which serve as buffer by increasing the demand for power in times of overproduction from renewable sources.
The release of methane from coal production, storage and transit accounts for less than 8% of total methane emissions in the US. 24% comes from natural gas production, storage and transit. The tanks and pipe lines are far from “air tight”, even if they meet industry defined standards for the term. Source for EPA numbers on emissions if you are curious
The idea of gas power plants as a supplementary system to pick up the slack is a sham, the vast majority of gas generator capacity being built does not shut down when non-emitting systems can meet demand. Especially in the context of replacing coal plants with gas plants. These are base load plants, not peaker plants.
Every time we build a new base load gas plant to replace a coal plant, we’re locking our selves into burning and leaking methane for another 30 years. Something we can not afford to be doing given that we can not wait 30 years to reach net zero emissions, even 20 years is a catastrophe.
The part of the gas and steam power plant which may be in use in the future is the gas turbine part, which can be shut down and started relatively fast. The remaining really large 'steam' part will become basically useless as it has too much inertia.
I also don't understand why in my region black coal power plants were newly built until a few years ago.
Gas turbines base load still take time to spin up and have lengthy shut down and start up procedures, even if they can be shut down. They are faster than a steam plant, but are not designed shut down and start up repeatedly over the course of a day.
The real question is why we are building any fossil fuel plants at all, and the answer is simple, they have immense lobbying power and vast full spectrum media campaigns that they use to prevent entirely viable existing alternatives from being built.
Don't forget people:
NIMBYs who protest against the Verspargelung of the landscape in case a new wind power plant is planned to be constructed. People protesting against roads being built through the 'beautiful' fir monoculture they use to call forrest. Some esoteric aunts who feel the water adder in their home being disrupted or fear 'electro smog', infrasound or drop shadow. Or environmentalists who are afraid that some bird will be shred to pieces. Eliminating all these concerns or ensuring improvement takes endless time and money.
Is a company builds a new fossil power plant as a replacement next to an existing one, everybody is happy because it's supposed to be cleaner. Sure, some environmentalists will also find that the habitat of an endangered species is going to be destroyed. But then the company can create a replacement somewhere near and the concerns of the environmentalists are relieved.
interesting that 'land use' has been pretty flat?
hard to tell with the stacking lines, but I guess this isnt dataisbeautiful after all
Even more interesting that land use had a marginal cooling effect, despite also causing a net increase in CO2 emissions.
This is just CO2, and doesn't include other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane.
Why only carbon dioxide and not all greenhouse gases? Nitrous oxide and methane are significant contributors especially in the agriculture sector
Personally I am far more worried by the lack of labels for the y axis. The longer I look at this graph the weirder it is.
lne goe upp iis gud
what are the units
Other is cow farts
Had to hunt for it but can can finally find the 2008 and 2020 dips in oil.
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
257 points (100.0% liked)
196
15693 readers
2171 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS