this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
42 points (97.7% liked)

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

5055 readers
401 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
42
The thermodynamics of electric vs. internal combustion cars (www.theclimatebrink.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Tangentially, I was looking at the cost of converting an existing house in Arizona to be entirely off-grid solar. The average single-family detached house in the US south uses 16,000kWh annually (the south uses more energy overall than any other region of the country). If I bump that figure up to 20,000kWh--which should allow for a purely electric home with zero gas for heating or cooking--and then plan a system that can produce 200% of my projected power needs, then I need a solar array that's about 30x30 (assuming roughly 20% efficient microcrystalline cells). (The actual array size varies based on where you are installing, since different areas have different annual amounts of sun; being able to produce more power than you project means that you're still producing power on more overcast days.) The solar panels to do that are about $18,000 right now, and have a projected lifespan of 25-40 years, with a .5% loss of efficiency annually. If my current power bill is $100/mo (it's actually more), and I'm currently using about 10,000kWh annually (which I am, but I also heat with a wood stove and have a gas stove for cooking), then over 25 years my electric bill is $30,000, which far exceeds the costs of the solar array alone, for less power.

Food for thought, y'all.

OTOH, living in Arizona has other problems, like, being hours from fucking anywhere, and water.

[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Rather than doubling your system generation size, it would be better to store the generated electricity. You can have a massive system, but it still won't generate anything at night.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Two points. First, yes, you need batteries, that kind of a given. Second, increasing the systems generation size means that you can charge batteries while also consuming power. Third, increased generation system size means that you'll still be generating sufficient power during the rare times that southern Arizona is overcast.

You would generally want to be as energy efficient as possible though, because being off-grid does make you vulnerable to insufficient generation capacity at any given time.