this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
58 points (96.8% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5296 readers
709 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The closest thing I can thing of is hydrogen, burning it just makes water, which while still a by-product, is the cleanest and least harmful product of I'm pretty sure any combustion reaction
Oh that's true actually, you could probably call that emissions free in the sense that it really is harmless. I don't know how I overlooked that tbh.
A lot of people are afraid because hydrogen fuel cells have a tendency to go boom, in terms of catastrophic failure.
There's the going boom factor and the fact there is no good pressure vessel that can stop the hydrogen from slowly leaking out through the walls.
Also looking that up I just discovered this:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/scientists-warn-against-global-warming-effect-of-hydrogen-leaks/
"Hydrogen is such a potent indirect greenhouse gas that it “could undermine the climate benefits of decarbonisation efforts,” warned Ilisa Ocko, a senior climate scientist at the EDF"
So... that creates a new problem before it gets out the tailpipe.
I don’t know what it is precisely, but I imagine that the lifetime of free hydrogen in the atmosphere is extremely short - like on the order of hours. Probably not much to worry about.
If you don't know, then pertinent information by leading climate scientists who do know, and are worried about it, is available at the link in my comment.
But since you seem inclined to make broad sweeping dismissals based on little more than your own admitted ignorance when you could've just spent like 60 seconds reading, I doubt this quote from the article will help you:
Maybe it will help other people to know why what you said is wrong.
I’m not saying it’s not a problem at all, but in general, we should focus our efforts on reducing emissions with high permanence. We’re already committed to an approximate sea level rise of about one meter over the next century, due in large part by CO2’s long half-life in atmosphere, up to 1000 years. By comparison, Methane’s half-life is about 12 years, and H2’s (which I did look up) is only 2 years. This makes it much less of a problem to deal with - not technically but socially.
The problem is that if we are still belching CO2 into the atmosphere in 2050 and find ourselves facing devastating cat6 hurricanes and global famine, the collective “oh shit” moment might spur action, but it’s unlikely to have any positive effect within a century, which would not bode well for civilization. By comparison, if we replaced our CO2 emissions with H2, that same “oh shit” moment could spur action that would mostly resolve things within a decade.
I view these alarmist articles about short-lived emissions the same way I see anti-nuclear rhetoric - a problem to be solved eventually, but not one that should stop us from taking advantage of its massive benefits.