this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
139 points (97.9% liked)

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

5181 readers
495 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
[email protected]
139
'No place in our homes' | Hydrogen blends leak twice as much in household cookers compared to gas: report | leakage rate is likely to wipe out any climate benefits of using H2 in the first place (www.hydrogeninsight.com)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I'm very confused. About a year ago I saw a YouTube video describing the use of hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels.

It went into great detail about the effectiveness and impracticable restrictions on distribution of pure hydrogen, mainly because its extremely small molecules leak through pretty much everything and compression is required to carry any useful quantities around, not to mention storage temperature and refuelling issues.

This was contrasted with using ammonia as a hydrogen delivery mechanism instead. We distribute and transport ammonia around the planet in great quantities already. The chemical process is green, uses significantly less energy, and we already know how to do this.

What I don't understand is why we're still talking about pure hydrogen, doing studies about cooking and still trying to promote this as a great fuel, when better, more effective ways exist.

Anyone?

More information here: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/11/ammonia-to-green-hydrogen/

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

One possible reason is that ammonia is a fairly dangerous substance with both acute and chronic exposure risks.

load more comments (7 replies)