A novel approach to reducing carbon emissions
The Biden administration on Wednesday announced a $1.5 billion loan to restart a Michigan nuclear power plant. The restoration, if approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would be the first instance of the U.S. recommissioning a shuttered nuclear plant.
When brought back online, the DOE projects the 800-megawatt Palisades plant will produce power through at least 2051.
And what will they do with the waste?
Put it in Trump Tower after it is confiscated
A preview on what is going to happen in large parts of South Asia.
Climate change is happening almost on par with the prognostics from 1977, when scientists warned politicians what would happen if we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is an amazing and disturbing report. Last yeae, a 200m tsunami in a Greenland fjord was caused by a collapsing mountain due to melting ice. The tsunami was sloshing around for nine days.
I heard about as a passing reference somewhere obscure, not realising the severity,
Why is this not front page news?
This is very, very bad.
Yes, bummer.
The problem with trees is that you would need a forest from the Iberian peninsula to the gates of Moskau simply to soak up the CO2 generated by all the Aral petrol stations in Germany. As a method of carbon capture trees are not very efficient, especially if you remember that when the tree dies the carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
What does make a difference is the ocean as almost all of the carbon gets removed from the atmosphere into the sea.
Thing is with the ocean warming the carbon capture is reduced.
Yes, the oceans are the bigger factor. The headline is a bit misleading in that sense. But the trend for land and ocean capture is exactly the same.
The measure of the quoted study here is the CO2 concentration growth rate in the atmosphere - that is much higher than the actual CO2 emissions growth rate.
What a dreadful headline. Reading the cited report, I understand that they estimate about a 50% reduction in the carbon sink (not almost no net removal of CO2). The trees did not suddenly stop absorbing CO2, though drought did affect growth. They cite forest fires as being a major cause of increased natural CO2 emissions. and increased forest fires are a result of climate change.
I would say that we are coming into a positive feedback loop where climate change begins to feed it´s self with a runaway greenhouse effect at the end. And it wont be gradual, I believe that when the methan hydrates in the sea and in the permafrost start to destabilize then we really going to have a problem.
No, we already have a real problem.
We do, but the way things are going the problems that we are having today are going to be seen as the good old days.
We have known what is going to happen since 1977 and the declaration from the Club of Rome.
Nothing happened.
Then in the nineties we were warned that if we continue along this path then the solution, if any, is going to be painful.
We are way past that point where we can do something about it, now we have to learn to deal with the outcome.
They say temps will go up 3,1 degrees at end of the century. But who gives a fuck about the weather in 2100 AD.
That´s only 76 years away… so…Your great grandkids…?
What is that?
