esavakkilainen.bsky.social
Judoka, professor, interested on energy
258 posts
155 followers
130 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Does he mean that the Global North has to stop decreasing fossil emissions, which it has been doing since 2005? Or...
comment in response to
post
Or is it a lag of stations capable to 400kW or higher charging.
comment in response to
post
In the paper it is clearly said "If the priority is maximizing per-hectare carbon removals from 2025 to 2050" and the results reflect that.
I'm arguing that for 1.5 oC the target is maximizing per-hectare carbon removals from 2025 to 2100. /3
comment in response to
post
Once we hace carbon in the athmosphere we can play around with LULUCF or CCS and reduce the CO2 in the air thus bringing CO2 down.
In many IPCC AR6 pathways you see the use of AF and BECCS long after 2050 to reduce the temperature at 2100. /2
comment in response to
post
Fossil fuels and biomass have a different physical function.
When you use fossil fuels you bring carbon into biosphere for a very long time. To stop warming we must stop addition of carbon.
Carbon in the biomass is stored mainly in atmosphere, seas and forest&land. /1
comment in response to
post
Thanks for pointing out this great paper.
The conclusions contain a logical fallacy;
We need to get to 1.5oC at 2100.
Therefore we need to stop using fossils by 2050.
This does not mean we need to maximize biomass growth by 2050 (this article) but instead we need to maximize it by 2100.
comment in response to
post
In Paris 2015 and the subsequent UNFCCC 1.5 oC report there were AFAIK significant CCS and CCU employed in addition to afforestation.
None of that is actually happening.
comment in response to
post
Also the Annex I-countries from original Kyoto agreement have reduced their CO2e emissions a lot (i.e. those that were required to decrease).
Emissions keep increasing because e.g. oil producing countries keep increasing fossil fuel emissions.
comment in response to
post
Onneksi veroja on laskettu reilusti, varsinkin enemmän ansaitsevien veroja. Muutenhan velkaa jouduttaisiin ottamaan enemmän, vai ..?
comment in response to
post
Kun ammoniakki ei ole kivaaune käsitellä sitä ei juuri rahdata.
comment in response to
post
Kun USA vetäytyy Euroopan puolustamisesta niin Eurooppa joutuu etsimään uusia kauppakumppaneita ja partnereita.
Nato yhteistyö ja Nato apu on taanneet USAlle vuosikymmeniä etulyöntiasemen kaupassa. Miten maailma muuttuneekin.
comment in response to
post
Also there is now a noted concern of how much CO2 is moving with groundwater i.e. now we assume that after roughly 1-1.5 m of soil the carbon transport deeper stops, but does it? We do not know.
Most probably it is minor effect if at all, but shows the problems with current measurements.
comment in response to
post
Needs +30 MW feed for battery charging at both ends.
comment in response to
post
Basically you argue that all cars should be banned because there are petrol driven cars ignoring e.g. electric ones.
comment in response to
post
Because carbon capture can be done also from fossil fuel use you argue it should not be allowed.
At the same time you disallow DACCS and BECCS. /1
comment in response to
post
You Want cheap electricity.
You are Happy when sun shines an electricity is free!
You complain bitterly when during the night the Price of electricity is Sky high.
comment in response to
post
Yhteisöveron laskun laaja ja perusteltu kritiikki ohitetaan. OECD:n suosituksista poimitaan kirsikat. Henkseleiden paukuttelua, vaikka saldo taloudessa on aika surkea. 2/2
comment in response to
post
If pouring particulate, sulphurous gases or NOx, into athmosphere, which causes known harm, does not create a case for the polluter to pay, then why should CO2 be the exception?
comment in response to
post
3. Full repeal of current federal energy and climate policies would: Increase average U.S. household energy costs by roughly $100 to $160 per household per year in 2030 and roughly $270 to $415 per household per year in 2035.
🔌💡
comment in response to
post
Vähemmälle huomiolle on jäänyt että maakuntalennot on paikallisten kansanedustajien suosiossa.
comment in response to
post
Hieno sana - valkovuokkokausi
comment in response to
post
Olisi hyvä että Kiina saisi päästönsä laskuun. Nythän data ei ole vielä varmaa koska Kiina kieltäytyy jakamasta avoimesti dataa jolla päästöjä voisi seurata.
Isoimmat tuhmeliinit on lähi-idän öljyntuottajamaat, Turkki, Indonesia, Malesia, Vietnam ja erityisesti Intia.
comment in response to
post
Laivalla lasti 10000 km maksaa saman kuin juna 1000 tai rekka 100 km. Miksi muuten laivalla tuotaisiin tavaraa Hankoon, Helsinkiin, Haminaan tai Kotkaan?
comment in response to
post
What is the input energy for solar generation? 10 times the output? What is input energy for geothermal? What is final energy use for electric passenger car? Electricity charged, electricity used by motor?
Doing clear nonambiguous statistics is not easy.
comment in response to
post
Cause or effect but softwood pulp prices are high in Europe, smaller change in China. Russian wood imports have stopped. IMHO pellet prices are back to normal.
ref www.opapeldigital.org.br/pub/papel/?n... which typically has a good statistical section.
comment in response to
post
Kaivosyhtiöiden kaivostoiminnan liikevaihto Suomessa on luokkaa 700 M€ vuodessa. Vaikka kaivosveroa nostettaoisiin (nyt tuotto 20 M€) ei rahastoon jää käytännössä juuri mitään investoitavaksi.
Aina halvempaa ajaa laivalla Keski-Eurooppaan kuin purkaa junarahdiksi.
comment in response to
post
Ymmärtääkseni juuri tästä syystä USAssa on riippumaton Congressional Budget Office. Toki ei lausu esim. Trumpin aikeista mitään kun ei ol Congressin toimista kysymys.
comment in response to
post
Electricity was cheap in 2024 if you had stopped fossil fuel electricity i.e. your electricity was around 10 gCO2/kWh.
In countries still tied to coal, like Germany, the electricity at might is >100 €/MWh. So daily sunshine does not help much. /2
comment in response to
post
It's not about energy!
It is the agricultural policy.
USA has way too much production and does not want to drive farmers to poorhouse.