96
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Generation methods that destroy key ecosystems of threatened and endangered species is not what I'd call "clean". We can do so much better than dams, getting rid of them in place of actual green power would be an incredible, healing boon to these major rivers and the ecosystems they support.

[-] pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sadly all power generation methods come at a cost. What would you suggest?

[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Wind and solar. They have downsides, like they all do, you're right, but they don't obliterate sensitive ecosystems of threatened species. The downsides to nature are significantly reduced with wind and solar. Tidal looks good too, but I don't know enough about it to give it the official "Some Random Guy on Lemmy Stamp of Approval ".

[-] pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de 1 points 6 months ago

I'm no expert so I don't know what causes more damage, but the production of photovoltaic cells also is by no means environmentally friendly. People die, ecosystems get destroyed, ...

And people argue that birds fly into wind generators and die, idk how much damage that is comparatively but probably the least. So from an environmental perspective, as a layman, I'd rank them wind > water > sun > non-renewables (nuclear > gas > coal).

But wind (and sun) always changes, so it's impossible to only have wind (and sun). You need:

  • Something stable that carries a large percentage (for example water in rivers or at the end of lakes (so basically at the start of a river)).

  • Something flexible that can quickly be increased or decreased (for example pumped hydro storage power stations, bonus points there for also being able to use energy when there's too much wind/sun; or non-renewables (burn more gas, get more electricity))

So even if we assume that wind and sun are better than water we still need either water or non-renewables. I'd say that's an easy choice.

[-] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 months ago

Large hydropower is not counted as “Renewable” by California. We have renewable portfolio targets, and we import a lot of wind power from the north to meet the standards.

[-] pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de 4 points 6 months ago

You can argue about how green it is, considering its impact on ecosystems, but how did they end at the conclusion that it's not renewable?

[-] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago

We already had so much of it, the renewable targets would have been too easy? Most dams use huge amounts of concrete or earth moving, and there’s no carbon-free way to do that work at this time? Policy makers didn’t want to incentivize any dam construction?

These are guesses. It’s probably in some kind of records. Sometimes laws even explain the rationale in the beginning with a bunch of “whereas” statements. But I’m too lazy to look it up right now.

[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

California power is awesome. Until recently, it was almost all nuclear. Those reactors take 6 hours to spin up and wind down. As demand went up for the day, they'd supplement their systems by buying power from BC. As the demand went down at night faster than the nuclear could wind down, they would pay BC to take their excess. You need to use you excess load or you blow up your grid. So BC was making money providing AND taking power at different points throughout the day.

Now, thanks largely to solar, California is generating so much power they have to pay people to take the excess during peak hours. Such an incredibly fast transformation. They still buy a bit at night, but California is quickly freeing itself from dependence on other systems.

So while they still import a bit of Hydro power, they'll be fully autonomously renewable really soon.

this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
96 points (97.1% liked)

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

5194 readers
903 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