GHG

PlanetCosmoX

Taxes do not determine whether or not a plant is emitting. Hydro generation in Canada is also limited and is publicly owned. It’s mixed with other supply. Any new datacenter would require new supply, and new hydro projects are hard to start due to those emissions and other problems that I just outlined. Tax policy is also slower to update to scientific realities, which means that these hydro plants will be taxed for GHG emissions in the future because they are not clean. Which means that any new datacenter would result in the build of GHG emitting power sources. Immigration and power demand has exceed hydro power generation, new generation must be built. It’s a many times cheaper and faster to built a natural gas power plant. But in Alberta, a Natural gas plant can be easily built to generate power and used to drive a datacenter. Also it comes with a discount on natural gas and oil, because those fuels are landlocked, there is not enough pipeline or transportation available to move all of the production of the those fuels out of that province.

AntoniaFauci

It’s not though. The fuel is the dirtiest imaginable, as is the toxic waste product. Nuclear construction (and also fuel mining, refining and delivery) has massive GHG-release that is made much worse because it’s front loaded. A nuclear build today would need to run perfectly at full capacity for 20+ years just to *break even* on the GHG damage it does. And current reactors have 25-30 initial operating life. Renewables are the better and opposite choice in every aspect.

AntoniaFauci

Which one, because whichever it was, I guarantee the whole cycle took longer than a decade. Nuclear generation is fatally flawed for many reasons. It is by far the most expensive form. It takes decades to design, build, and start operating. The build phase releases massive amounts of GHG, so much so that a reactor needs to run *perfectly* for minimum of 15-25 years just to offset the front-loaded GHG harm. And current designs only have a 25-30 projected operating life, so there’s very little “green” about them. They are prone to nuclear accidents, and the industry never, ever, ever takes responsibility for those. The fuel is dangerous and massive GHG-harmful to mine, refine and deliver. The waste and accident residue is harmful for as long as the human species has been around. Normally I’d say the good news is that we have an alternative that flips all of those fatal flaws. It’s the cheapest, cleanest, safest energy. It can be deployed rapidly, and in many instances, doesn’t have reliance on our completely broken grid. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately fossil, and now nuclear lobbyists have brainwashed Americans into hating renewables. It’s like they’ve conditioned people that free vegetables are bad and dog feces are good.

AntoniaFauci

Even with all the self-proclaimed diligence in the world, nuclear can, and often does, go wrong. And when it inevitably “goes wrong”, the industry never, ever, ever takes responsibility. The overconfident hubris of engineering fetishists is chilling to me, and I’m one of the people they unwittingly worship! Nuclear is the most expensive, most dangerous, most toxic and least feasible energy. It is almost never given a proper GHG analysis. It is primarily being pitched for and by lucrative construction lobbies. Anything a tech bro thinks they like about nuclear, they could find better, cleaner, cheaper, safer, sooner with renewables. Nuclear isn’t fossil fuels, but it does all the same evil things and every minute and penny we put into nuclear comes at the cost of renewables, which is to the detriment of human civilization.

AntoniaFauci

Not sure 2026 will be the year, but I’m accumulating solar stocks for a future payday. We are desperately short of electricity, and that problem is getting worse by the day. Your electric bill is everyone’s worst bill. It goes up faster than inflation and never goes down and never will. Conservative hogwash about “clean” coal won’t help. Naive tech bro hogwash about nuclear plants which are not clear or safe or cheap and will take 20+ years and accelerate our GHG crisis are not the answer. Meanwhile solar offers unlimited free electricity from the sky. It’s the cheapest and cleanest and quickest electricity possible. In can be deployed rapidly. It doesn’t even need a grid. You can put it on your roof, your shed. Your neighbourhood can do it. Your small town can. Your farm can. Yet even as we KNOW electricity is a crisis AND we KNOW solar is the best free electricity, somehow stocks like ENPH are down 92%. Profitable and backlogged things like FSLR have bounced back nicely, but could still have room to run. Naive “nuke-u-lar” turfers will say “but solar doesn’t work at night!” as if zeroing out “only” two thirds of your worst bill is somehow a bad thing. This regressive crime family administration may be scientifically and economically impaired, but they’re also random. It’s possible some Enphase Peace and Virulity trophy or some random realization on the value of getting free electricity suddenly kicks in. But even if it doesn’t happen this year, there will come a day when Americans copy the rest of the world in recognizing the value of free electricity.

FOUOhCrap

“No” is a bold assertion based on what, your opinion? I was a national officer in critical infrastructure and I can tell you, you’re wrong. “Electrifying the entire US light-duty vehicle fleet by 2050 will require less than 1% growth per year in overall electricity generation. Furthermore, complying with the EPA’s latest GHG standards for light duty vehicles will create only a 6% increase in electricity demand by the end of 2032. So, the answer is yes—the grid can absolutely handle all those EVs.” https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/blog-can-the-grid-handle-evs-yes/#:~:text=Summary,absolutely%20handle%20all%20those%20EVs. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/can-the-nations-electrical-grid-support-electric-cars https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/20/strategic-ev-charging-might-eliminate-the-need-for-new-power-plants/

Canadian_Border_Czar

Hmm, have they made their product not suck? No. Have the global trends towards GHG reduction continued? No, theyve reversed significantly.  This isnt tech dude, theyre selling FOOD. If people dont eat your food then your company fails.

AntoniaFauci

Former nuclear scientist here. The nuclear energy pitch is fatally flawed in multiple ways. It’s really a nuclear construction sales scam. It’s the most expensive, it’s toxic, and potentially dangerous. Hence why the sales cartel employs the same firms who brought us Big Tobacco and Big Oil, and they gaslight the exact opposite claims. Nuclear plants take 15-25 years to construct which is incredibly lucrative for the specialized builders. Exactly zero plants are under construction in this country, and exactly zero have been approved. The cartel pitching them only cares about the profitable construction. They hand it off for slapdash future operation. They also take no responsibility for the numerous “accidents”. A big part of their sales cycle is turfing places like Reddit to indoctrinate young,vocal, tech-fetish aspirational bros. They brainwash them a bit with false talking points and links, then let them run embellish and badger. The hope is these bros will grow up to have influence and power, and they’ll be pre-programmed as nuclear fanboys. Nuclear has not improved in 70 years. Operation is *less* safe now that is largely transitioned to private-profit cost-averse operators. The toxic waste problem remains. Accidents are *always* neglected. Costs and build delays are insanely high. The impacts of “accidents” are catastrophic and long lasting. Other fatal flaws besides the total lack of financial feasibility and safety include the always-overlooked fact that the build phase creates catastrophic front-loaded GHG emissions. A plant has to be running *perfectly* for 20-25 years just to offset its own GHG emissions from construction. And modern designs have 30 design life. Front loading the GHG release is disastrous, especially now that we’ve learned the tundra cap is cracked open. But even if we could magically build these cheaper and faster (and to be clear, we cannot) and even if we had the only situation in history where profit-obsessed builder corporations and operation corporations actually cared about safety, the sales cartel never mentions that if we built all the plants they propose, we’d hit peak uranium in less than 40 years. There just isn’t anywhere near enough fuel for nuclear to be our main power. The good news is we DO have something that’s a hundred times more viable. It’s cheap, clean, safe, quick, and ultra low GHG. The tragic news is the Big Nuclear bros have succeeded in crippling and smearing it. It’s renewables and conservation. These have done miraculously well over the past 15 years. But evil propaganda smears them, and the future tech bros have fallen for it. Angry tech bros who have been tricked into thinking fusion plants are imminent are violently opposed to actual working fusion-source energy. It would laughable if it weren’t so sad. Free energy from the sun has the best potential by far. But the nuclear construction cartels can’t exploit that. And no corporation or sovereign has barrels of sunlight for sale. So they smear it. Similar with free electricity from water and wind and oceans and the ground. Much quicker, cheaper to deploy than even the fantasy nuclear plants. Clean, safe, low GHG. But try to get a Reddit bro to see that.

0prtnty

Personally, i see a major energy crisis coming up fueled mostly by ai but by a change in perspective concerning GHG emissions. Because of that, i'm really into uranium on the long run (5-10 years). I

Emergency_Custard854

GHG isn't a ticker in this context. It's greenhouse gases

AntoniaFauci

Among other things, I’m pointing out how Fox Business just copy and pastes whatever commercial a company writes and sends them. Fox Business is not the only lazy and complicit media, and this is hardly the only stock that does this. But the corrupt Big Nuclear lobby is extremely heavy on Reddit. They correctly perceive that Reddit is a locker room for the most vocal tech-aspirational bros. They turf the hell out of Reddit and let the volunteer conscripts do the rest. Regarding this stock in particular they are decades away from a product, and decades more from a product that’s carbon neutral. By the time they’ve built anything and offset the massive upfront GHG damage, we’ll be looking at peak uranium. And aside from all that, nuclear will still be the most expensive form of energy, with the most extreme risks. Meanwhile we have free electricity from the sun, the sky, the water and the ground. Those forms are available within days, not decades. They don’t produce waste, let alone waste that will cause cancer for 20,000 years. They cost a fraction to set up and their “fuel” costs nothing and never runs out. But futurology bros on Reddit are being washed to think these highly viable solutions are somehow bad. And they’re also being programmed to ignore that the nuclear construction cartel business which has failed and deceived for every day of its existence is something they should blindly trust. Still, bringing this fully on topic, nuclear names are very much “up” stocks right now, to the point where even I am invested in the sector. Lots of money can be made regardless of how many false promises are made and broken later.

AntoniaFauci

The nuclear power pitch is fatally flawed in many ways. It’s the most expensive, most toxic and least safe form. The nuclear construction cartel uses the exact same lobbyists, agencies and methods as Big Oil and Big Tobacco, almost all of what you see and hear here is a result of their turfing. Very briefly, it’s expensive, takes decades to build, it front loads massive GHG release, doesn’t get to carbon neutral for 40+ years, requires fuel and waste that’s decidedly unclean and unsafe. The industry cares only about the lucrative build phase, thands off to shoddy operators, and all “accidents” and cleanup land on taxpayers. Even if we had magic reactors spring up overnight and even if we created strong regulations to use only good operators and reduce “accidents”, it’s folly as we’d hit peak uranium in 40 years anyway, and the costs would be prohibitive before than anyway. Source: former nuclear scientist. The biggest joke of it all is that during the last decade and a half, we’ve developed renewable energy that actually IS immensely safe and clean and cheap. Literally free electricity from the sky. And yet one first world country is putting the brakes on it. The aspriring tech bros who are being turfed by Big Nuclear should actually look at renewables (and conservation)

AntoniaFauci

In reality, nuclear is the most expensive, toxic, unsafe and unsustainable alternative energy. Nuclear plants take around 20 years to be built, and we currently have (checks notes) *zero* under construction. However, Stock market and tech bros do not operate in reality, so Nuclear meme stocks can and certainly have done well. (After construction, they take another 15-25 years of perfect operation to offset their enormous GHG-emissions caused during the construction phase, debunking the greenwash sales pitch used by the nuclear construction cartel. They would also need a rebuilt grid, which isn’t happening. And even if all these fatal flaws were magically corrected, peak uranium is 40 years away, so this isn’t the solution. But that is all an aside for readers care about facts.)

Antique_Move2311

Not sure what is implied here. China has 1.5 billion people so of course when they became a developed country, their emissions were going to sky rocket. Even with all that population, their emissions are still less than the US I believe and while they have only recently started polluting the world with GHG emissions, the US has been doing it for decades so it’s the ultimate red herring argument to point at China and say ‘what about them’? Germany is part of the EU and the EU is stepping up in this area as well as adjacent areas like plastics pollution. Will the EU ‘destroy’ its economy. I’m sure they won’t be in as advantageous as a position as the US, but they will be just fine.

Antique_Move2311

I predicted about ten years ago that if there is a WWIII, it will be over climate change. With the direction the US is going, I believe this is more likely than ever. Almost the whole world is in the Paris Agreement. The 2-3 who aren’t are Middle East oil countries. For how long will the world allow the US to keep pumping GHG emissions endlessly into the atmosphere?

Body_Cunt

Good! Reminder that meat and dairy account for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Reducing GHG emissions, Trump would hate it!

AntoniaFauci

I’m not. Nuclear has numerous fatal flaws. 70 years ago there was maybe a chance, but we’ve blown it. Nuclear is the most toxic, most expensive, most delayed, and riskiest. It’s not financially feasible. It front loads massive GHG release during its disastrously long 20 year construction phase. It’s like saying your eat healthy starting in 21 years if you can just eat arsenic for years 1-20. It has broken every promise of the last 70 years. The industry has abandoned every “accident”. Our de-regulation obsessed governments will never control it responsibly. Oh, and even if you ignored all that and magically built magical nuclear plants overnight, we’d hit peak uranium in 40 years, making it an extremely short and useless and wildly expensive stop gap anyway. The good news is that renewables and conservation have been wildly successful with huge acceleration in adoption and plummeting costs. The bad news is the potential of renewable energy is being hugely drowned out by Big Nuclear’s turfing of places like this. You’re being actively targeted. They’re feeding false or deceptive talking points to you. They conscript young tech bros, who then go on to embellish and spread messages designed to impede renewables. Then those bros dominate discussions here, and everywhere else. They go on to publish bad textbooks and misleading copypastas. There’s a reason why every time someone like me brings it up, there’s a swarm of responses that have marketing approved links to industry propaganda sites and citations. That’s not organic.

AntoniaFauci

As a trained nuclear nuclear scientist who has actually worked in the industry, nuclear construction is a lobbyist hell hole of hyped disinformation. It’s propaganda from the same firms that brought us Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Doesn’t mean I’m not invested in it, since hype and disinfo sells, especially in aggro fan boy enclaves, moreso if it has technology connotations. From a planetary and species perspective, it’s tragic. The nuclear industry and premise has numerous fatal flaws. People don’t know or care, and that’s 10x stronger in bubbles like Reddit. There’s a reason Big Nuclear agencies have most of their chips in Reddit, X and related. There are currently zero nuclear plants under construction. One that do get approved take 20 years and, with zero exceptions, always have massive cost and time overruns. Nuclear is, by enormous margins, the most expensive energy source. The industry you hear from and about is actually a construction cartel. They want to sell 20 year construction builds where every unit of time and material is by far the most expensive on earth. Then when it comes to running them and cleaning up the numerous “accidents” the industry is long gone and unaccountable. Appeals to green thinkers are brazenly fraudulent, leaving out the fact that a nuclear build causes massive GHG emissions during construction which is disastrous because it’s front loaded. They deceptively hook people by focusing on years 25-50, but the accelerated damage from year 1-25 make that moot. For a nuclear strategy to have even worked, we would need a robust and high capacity grid. We have the opposite. And one party has guaranteed we can never even repair our dilapidated grid, let alone replace it. Nuclear has failed for 75 consecutive years to solve waste and safety and cost problems. Tech bro hype aside, nothing has actually changed. It’s too late. On top of all that, even if the hype wasn’t all a construction cartel lobbyist lie, even if they could magically invent safe and clean reactors and even if they bought another miracle and could build them overnight and even all the other impossible things happen and we had all the imaginary wonderful nuclear plants.... we’d run into to get another fatal flaw: peak uranium would happen in less than 40 years. Despite this cold shower of hard reality that I promise you bros and paid lobby agents will appear immediate to lie about, there is a better way. Renewables and conservation solve for every fatal flaw that exists with big nuclear. Unlike nuclear, they’re actually clean, actually safe, actually cheap. Most don’t need much of a grid. The “fuel” as such is free and is endless, unlike the 40 year uranium problem. Renewable energy is usually the lowest cost to produce, by a long shot. Remember, nuclear is by far the highest. And conservation has even better ROI. Renewables and conservation may not be enough to save our civilization from mankind’s stupidity and malice. But it’s got a million times better odds of doing so than nuclear.

tech01x

Which US credits? Only the CAFE GHG is going away, the CARB ZEV effectively went away years ago, and the EV battery production credits are not going away. Furthermore, credit revenue isn’t the same per vehicle across the world, so % of sales isn’t the metric here.

tech01x

Do you have the split between EPA GHG, CARB ZEV, EU credit pool, Chinese and South Korean carbon credits, and so forth?

tech01x

This comes up a lot… with a bunch of folks that don’t realize that there are tons of various regulatory credits. There’s EPA GHG, CARB ZEV, IRA battery production credits, EU carbon pooling, Chinese carbon trading, South Korea carbon trading, and so forth. Out of all of these, CARB ZEV has been effectively dead for a long time, and EPA GHG is going away in that the fines go to $0. The U.S. new and used EV tax credit goes to customers, and that is going away. But that also has distorted the market, effectively putting a 125-175% tariff on LFP cells from China (thanks Biden) It is Lucid and Rivian that will be hit hard on the CAFE GHG tax credits - that’s how Rivian has managed to eek some contribution margin positive margins. And for Ford and GM with a lot of Mexican and Canadian production and parts, the tariffs hit pretty hard in addition to the lack of credits to balance out their massively money losing EV programs. As for sp, who knows. More likely nothingburger for now, with projections into the future, with the rollout of FSD improvements and Robotaxi being far more important.

AntoniaFauci

Another problem is the fact incredibly massive up front GHG emissions that nuclear builds release. Up front release is so much worse because it will finish melting the polar caps much sooner. There’s numerous other fatal flaws.

AntoniaFauci

The waste is just one of the fatal flaws of the nuclear pitch. It’s still and unsolved problem and a broken promise. Worse however is the safety. Nuclear is all privatized, and the profit-above-everything owners and operators always fuck up, and when they do, they *always* cut and run. They never clean up their “accidents”. Nuclear is massively more expensive than every other energy source. The plants take decades and always, always come in very late and massively over budget. The construction build front loads immense GHG release, making it so the plant needs to run perfectly and 100% capacity for 20 years just to make back the offset. And current designs have 30 year max life span. Nuclear requires a new grid that we don’t have and never will. Nuclear needs a fuel source that’s already running out, and is incredibly dirty and difficult. The list of fatal flaws goes on. The good news is we have options that are massively better. But since they don’t have a commodity to sell or crooked lobbyists, Reddit bros have been trained to hate and lie about them. Renewables and conservation. Free electricity from the sky or the air or the water. Zero waste. Safe. Clean. Free. Many of them have no reliance on building a new grid. No accident risk. Clean. Cheap. Ready to deploy now. US jobs.

AntoniaFauci

Solar is free electricity from the sky. It does not require the entire national grid to be rebuilt. It can be deployed in days. Nuclear plants need 20 years and always come in massively over budget and late. Solar means domestic manufacturing jobs too. No front-loaded GHG which is one of the many fatal flaws of nuclear.

garebeargarebear

There is enforcement on the compliance side for each OEM with CAFE/GHG compliance. Basically, the only way to meet the fuel economy standards that increased yearly was to heavily rely on EV’s. Even Toyota, who is hybrid heavy, is barely complying with the regs. It’s not a strict mandate, but the standards are guiding it to be without much option

AntoniaFauci

Turns out physics hasn’t changed since the 70s. Or the 90s. Or the 60s. Take off the dunce cap kiddo. It sounds like you know very little and what little you know is mistaken. Ask your teacher if you don’t believe me. Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and requires layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of safeguards just to operate, and even then, accidents are disturbingly frequent. And unlike anything else, when nuclear accidents happen, they can be catastrophic. Whole countries and continents are at risk. And then the industry abandons those catastrophes and lets them fester for decades. Even when nuclear plants are operating nominally, they produce toxic waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. They are the most expensive form of energy in human history and always will be. Building them is also a false environmental con because of the massive up front GHG-release that happens during construction. Up front release is disastrous to the planet because it speeds up warming. Even an on-time and fully working plant (of which there’s no such thing) has to run at perfection for 20-25 years just to offset the upfront GHG emissions. And guess what? Current gen plants have design life of 30 years. The fuel is another boongdoggle of risk, cost, danger, GHG-release and issues related to entities seeking weapons. Renewables have NONE of these issues. None. If you hadn’t instigated being an insulting dickhead, I’d normally be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, I think the false views you hold are not your fault but a deliberate result. Nuclear construction is insanely profitable and thus has some lfmthr richest lobbyists and most well funded propaganda on earth. They deliberately AstroTurf places like Reddit because young, pre-educated males are the perfect marks. They seed them with disinformation and exploit their youthful energy and aggression to do things like what you did: attack and then amplify the disinfo. I wish nuclear energy were viable. I spent a good portion of my life trying to make that happen. I have the education and have worked in the industry. Sadly, 70 straight years of broken promises and subordination to corrupt interests means it has failed to deliver, failed to advance, and it’s now too late. The silver living is there’s something much better: conservation and renewables. That too is probably going to be too little and too late. But new nuclear is no solution. Worse, it’s an expensive distraction and diversion from our only hope (renewables and conservation).

AntoniaFauci

Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and expensive. That’s why the industry uses the exact same lobbyists from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to gas people that it’s “clean, safe, and cheap”. If it were white and round they’d swear it’s black and square. Evil propaganda lives by the big lie. Nuclear builds are corrupt and take 20 years. They release a massively climate destructive amount of GHG during construction. Once built they are the least safe and by orders of magnitude the most expensive. In a sane country, we’d continue the incredible progress of renewables. In this country, the best compromise situation you can look at it is natural gas. That will be what passes for “clean”.

AntoniaFauci

> AI datacenters were already planning to use nuclear Nobody who actually builds or operates them thought that. Only Wall Street dingbats who know nothing about science or energy or electricity. There is no new nuclear to use. And the soonest there could be some is 20 years from now. And it would be the same corrupt industry building it. The AI data centers won’t wait 1 year, let alone 20. Solar and renewables are essentially free electricity from the sky. It has no GHG emissions, no waste product, no terrorism risk and doesn’t require a brand new grid to be built. Nuclear is by an order of magnitude the most expensive to build and operate and the most dangerous and most toxic. For widespread adoption, it requires us to build a new grid first.

Dracula-List7846

He (elon) sold the “green washing” concept when no other options was available. I dare anyone come up with a serious CI n any EV, specifically any Tesla, and not feel stupid with the real GHG emissions equivalent per mile in a Tesla vehicle vs a fossil fuel.

NoPsychology9771

I tend to disagree. Neither cars or US big techs are making anyone's life any better. Maybe it could be a wake-up call to focus one more important things like cutting GHG emissions, reducing car dependency, less scrolling on smartphones and stopping electing morons.

AntoniaFauci

Sounds like your “research” is straight from Landman. Don’t feel bad as there is a tremendous amount of false propaganda from lobbyist funded by these corrupt industries, and they’ve been concentrating hard on feed it to young internet bros because they correctly know you blindly regurgitate and embellish it as you have here, and that in turn will mal-program AI engines. In reality, nuclear plant construction takes 15-20 years, and there’s currently exactly zero such plants even planned for North America. The massive concrete demands alone are GHG-abusive for 18-25 years before the inflection point. Current nuclear plant designs have a service life of 30 years not “five decades”. But’s all academic anyway because turbocharging atmospheric warming for the next 20-30 years by building concrete bunkers aka nuclear plants will have us so deep in the hole that will be in an old age care home or six feet under before the falsely advertised nuclear plant could be called “green”. Again, I give you the illustration of eating 50 pizzas a day for 20 years and thinking you can start your diet then. It doesn’t work. You’re dead before the diet starts. Severely front loading the damage done during construction makes the payoff scientifically irrelevant.

Angry_Citizen_CoH

I did a bit of research. Turns out that the estimated GHG outputted during a nuclear power plant construction is roughly equivalent to the yearly GHG produced by four to six natural gas plants. In exchange, you get a power plant that can run for five decades or more, leading to an average GHG output less than 1% of fossil fuel plants. Frontloading, maybe, but you're vastly overstating it. You're also vastly overstating how viable renewables are for baseload power.

AntoniaFauci

Nuclear is not “sustainable”. Among other things, it front-loads and accelerates GHG-based climate destruction during the 10-20 year construction. It’s essentially the same as someone saying they promise to go on a nutritious diet... starting in 20 years... and only if they can do fentanyl and eat 50 pizzas a day first. In other words, the amount that nuclear construction will speed up the demise of the species will make things worse, not better. What truly is sustainable are renewables and conservation. If we as a civilization were smart, every penny and every bit of effort going into fossils and nuclear would instead go to renewables and conservation. But we’re not, so that’s why natural gas is going to get short squeezed, and so is uranium.

SerialStrategist

They're already doing that with the GHG emissions. No need to go through congress when you can just burn fuel and coal to ban winter.

AntoniaFauci

Nuclear plants take 10-20 years, and the monorail salesmen who pitch them are being caught lying about the up front accelerated GHG damage they cause, the fact nuclear is by the most expensive form of energy, simple human errors can have catastrophic impact, 80 years and still no solution to the toxic waste, and the fact they aren’t going to fit well with our decrepit grid. All that said, our selfish and rapacious human behavior does mean a continued steepening of energy consumption, so even when the AI bubble pops in a few years (or the alleged AI need is satisfied) there will still be lots of people arguing for nuclear power so we can air condition our home fireplaces or whatever.

AntoniaFauci

Wait, are you thinking because it’s chilly out today that massive mountain ranges of indisputable GHG science and climate data are somehow not real? Jebus help us.

Inconceivable76

They bet on hydrogen because they looked at the automotive market, particularly in the UD, and said there’s no way BEVs are the answer.  You aren’t allowed (at least you weren’t for a long time) allowed to say 100% GHG free is a pipe dream. So they put their money towards the things that even had a snowbells chance in hell- hydrogen and solid state batteries. 

tech01x

Not transitory. Folks have been claiming it is transitory since 2009. And yet... here we continue to be. There regulatory credits come from the EU, China, US CAFE GHG, CARB ZEV, and others. Legacy automakers are doing a piss poor job of meeting ever more stringent emissions standards across the globe. If anything, the regulatory credits are likely to increase over the next few years.

tech01x

Everyone has been living under the same rules. Tesla has been making various kinds of regulatory credits since 2009. If anything, legacy automakers are slipping further behind as the rules ratchet up, so Tesla will make more money on regulatory credits. Check what is going on in Europe and China, as Tesla makes significant regulatory credits in those markets. In the US, as companies pivot away from the aggressive ramp of BEVs and CAFE GHG rules tighten, Tesla will continue to make good money on CAFE GHG. CARB ZEV has been kinda dead for a while, but mostly because many automakers already purchased what they needed in the past for a while... but again, the rules get tighter and they don't yet make enough and can't make enough low emissions vehicles so they will be coming back to the credit market for more.

tech01x

Regulatory credits are part of the automotive business. Just like one takes into account other factors, regulatory credits is a fact of the competitive landscape. Plus, it's multiple governments including the US federal CAFE GHG, EU emissions credits, Chinese carbon trading, and state level incentives. It's not one pot, its many. And as long as that system is available, why wouldn't Tesla take advantage of it? Rivian and Lucid will certainly.

jackstrikesout

You're preaching to the choir. I didn't go into GHG estimates in a microeconomics sense because it didn't really exist when i was school. That's relatively new, I was thinking of going to training for it. I think it's dumb but I'll take the money and fancy office. Just drive a relatively efficient car to get your burger. I like steak. I'm not lame. Or take a bus or a rail. That's ideal. CO2 calculations should be done by environmental agencies and governments, not you and me.

Ring__Worm

Well it’s an area where I used to do research at university in Berlin and what I learned helped me unterstand GE Vernova enough to figure out it’s a) probably not well understood by the masses, b) it’s a spin-off so it’s under researched and many funds cannot invest straight away, and c) it’s a contrarian bet, because many believe nuclear to be big, when it’s just not the case. Just quickly look into the “world nuclear industry” status report. I met the main author Mr Schnyder in Berlin, twice. Just quickly check the facts about how many plants go off the grid compared to the startup numbers and the delays of nuclear power plants. By well-to-grid I mean everything upfront, which is especially the GHG emissions from mining uranium and enriching / aggregating / multiplying it (don’t know the English term, sorry) so that you can use it in a power plant.

Sabertooth512

While there are other geologic factors that can cause dramatic and long-run climactic changes, such as atmospheric oxygen content (snowball earth events), ice ages are now understood to be caused by Milankovitch Cycles. No planetary orbit is circular; all orbit is eccentric (ovular). Obliquity is the degree of Earth’s axial tilt (currently 23.5 degrees), which ranges from 22.1–24.5 degrees. Procession is the “wobble” of the planet’s axis… imagine the wobble of the handle on a spinning dreidel. The variation of these three factors over tens of thousands (obliquity, procession) and hundreds of thousands of years (orbital eccentricity) align to facilitate short-term changes to Earth’s climate on a geologic time scale. Geologists and glaciologists estimate that the next glacial maximum (farthest orbital distance from the Sun) will occur in around 80,000 years, so we are actually moving INTO an ice age right now. So that leaves us with a serious problem: why is it still getting warmer? If we’re currently moving into another ice age while observing rapid warming, ocean acidification, glacial melt, etc, then why? TL;DR: The consensus among geologists is that temperature retention within Earth systems is directly correlative to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Warming follows massive outgassing events, which is essentially what we’ve been doing on an industrial scale. The fact that Earth is moving into the next ice age while 150 billion tons of meltwater pours into the ocean every year tells us that something (GHG emissions) is seriously wrong with the Earth system. Don’t you even dare look up thaw slumps.

DjangoBojangles

It's not a real both sides thing, though. There's scientists, who are in agreement that GHG induced climate warming is happening. And deniers, who have no data to support their views. Ocean temps took off in spring of last year. The majority of heat records have all been recorded in the 2000s, and they're becoming hotter and more frequent. What we see is supporting with the 'alarmist' predictions. The IPCC model only accounts for double heating at the poles. We're observing closer to 4-8× the amount of warming at the poles. As for jet-owners with private interests, I think you're mixing up Leonardo DiCaprio on a jet talking about climate change, and the big oil execs on jets who have systemically disinformed the population about climate change, while burying their own scientists' work that predicts GHG induced global warming. Except for celebrities, people screaming about climate disasters are not private jet owners trying to pull a veil over people. People screaming about climate disasters are scientists. People screaming about climate hoaxes are salemen and uneducated contrarians. If you read an anti climate article and their only argument is 'T Swift is a hypocrite on her plane", then it's probably not an article to use to understand the science. We can't find a time in the rock record where the climate changed faster than it is right now. (4-5 hiroshimas worth of energy added to the oceans every second for 20+ years) On the geologic scale, this is an instantaneous release of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon. Sure, the earth can bounce back, but not on our timeline. Predictions for doubling CO2 have been consistent for almost a century. It's really mind-blowing to see how online misinformation and tribalism can convince huge swaths of people to ignore scientific consensus and evidence that's right in front of us. What's that old Twain quote, 'easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they've been fooled' Anyways, we're dealing with huge weather setbacks, increasing crop failures, and inhospitable heat. Global trade and global food are going to be under stress every year. That is going to hurt markets. And if shit does get very bad, the ultra rich who control mega corps are already preparing to live in bunkers. They're already built their collapse bunkers while we're on here trying to convince people that climate change is real, bad, and happening faster than expected.

Texuk1

So… I follow the sub and have money in the stock market and want to offer a counter view to this. The basic premise of r/collapse in most of cases(ie excluding nuclear war and pandemics) is that the system itself is spoiling the conditions on which it thrives. If you invest in an index fund you are investing across the economy, 98%of that economic activity produces GHG’s across the whole system, very little of our economic activity is carbon neutral, none of our activity is carbon reducing. Corporations are machine/human hybrids and have no interest in stopping their activities which ultimately lead to their own destruction. The only thing reducing carbon is green life on earth. GHG’s continue to rise despite all the work to go to a green economy - this is the key point. GHG’s cause climate change which results in extreme heat, crop failures, pandemics, disease, desertification, etc. for the first time we had a CAT5 hurricane in July. For reasons which I don’t need to explain to sub like this, complex systems of globalised economy are “fragile systems” and prone to collapse so the premise is we live in fragile systems which are driving environmental problems which make the more fragile and prone to collapse. It’s not really negativity it’s kind of obvious when you look a bit more closely at it it’s just inconvenient.

DjangoBojangles

I'm a collapse doomer. And a basic investor. Here's my logic: Invest and things fall apart, you're fucked. Don't invest, and things fall apart, you're fucked. Don't invest, and things don't fall apart, you're fucked. Invest and things don't fall apart, you're good. So, the only winning strategy is to invest and hope collapse doesn't come. However, collapse is coming. We're already seeing catastrophic weather changes at 1.7°C. GHG emissions are not coming down, and GHG emissions cause the heating. By conservative models, we're due to be +2-3°C by the time I need to draw retirement. Scientists predict 25% reduction in crop yields at +2°, -50% at +4°. Billions of people are already nearing the living limit of wet bulb temps. Those people will have to relocate. Billions. +1.7° is causing mega hurricanes, drought, forest fires, and 2-foot rainstorms all over the world. The oceans have been at record high temps for a year and a half. We've had so much biodiversity loss that it fits the criteria for a mass extinction event. The global supply chain can't survive a billion man migration. The global food chain can't survive consecutive disasters (drought, fire, flood). The oceans can't survive the heat. Water can't hold enough oxygen when it's hot. Plants die when there's too much heat. The cat-5 hurricane coming 2 months early is what happens with the extra energy from +1.7°C. Imagine what +3° will do. By 2100, we expect a minimum of +3°, with some estimates up to +7-10°. I need my money around 2050. Do you think the global trade systems can survive another 25 years if these trends continue? I don't. But I also don't intend to be a bankrupt 60 year old on the streets because I blew all my money, thinking the financial system would collapse before I retire.

asukkar91

Due Diligence: PyroGenesis Canada Inc. (TSX: PYR, OTCQX: PYRGF) Hey everyone, I wanted to share some recent updates on PyroGenesis Canada Inc. (PYR), a high-tech company focused on advanced plasma processes and sustainable solutions. These updates are based on responses from the company’s recent annual general meeting and several recent news releases. There are some exciting developments worth noting that could signal a bullish trend for the stock. Key Highlights: 1. Titanium Metal Powder Project: • Status: The project is progressing well, with ongoing production and delivery of titanium powder. This dismisses earlier concerns about potential cancellation. • Second Order: PyroGenesis received a second order from a leading Spanish aerospace client for its high-quality titanium metal powder, suitable for advanced additive manufacturing methods. The client indicated the potential for a long-term contract following the successful completion of this order, showcasing the growing demand and confidence in PyroGenesis’ products. 2. Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS): • Initial Value: Initially valued at $25-30 million. • Current Negotiations: The project has expanded significantly and is now being negotiated for a total contract value between $115-160 million. This major increase could greatly enhance the company’s revenue stream. 3. Name Change: • Status: The company is in the final stages of a name change, signaling a rebranding effort that might attract new investors and increase market visibility. 4. SPARC™ Waste Destruction System: • Status: The project for the New Zealand client is progressing well, despite a delay in delivery to early 2025 due to construction delays. This aligns with New Zealand’s aggressive GHG reduction targets. 5. Plasma Torch Advancement: • Negotiations: Ongoing negotiations with a North American entity for a high-power plasma torch system, with a potential contract value of $15-25 million. This showcases the company’s technological advancements and market demand for its innovative solutions. 6. Pyro Green-Gas Developments: • Recent Contracts: Signed contracts totaling $2.5 million for the delivery of a thermal swing adsorption (TSA) system for the $1 billion Varennes Carbon Recycling (VCR) plant. This project, supported by major corporate partners and government backing, aims to convert up to 200,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste and residual biomass into biofuels and chemicals, significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Additional Negotiations: Negotiating a $2 million contract with a biogas production entity. This adds to the $4 million in new projects already signed this year, highlighting the subsidiary’s growth potential. 7. PozPyro Cement Additive Project: • Lab Results: On May 2, 2024, PyroGenesis announced that its PozPyro green cement additive achieved remarkable results in 28-day lab strength tests, surpassing the compressive strength target by up to 99.56%. This development positions PozPyro as a strong replacement for fly ash in cement, offering significant environmental benefits by reducing CO2 emissions during production. • Market Potential: The North American cement market is projected to reach 279.8 million tons by 2032, presenting a substantial market opportunity for PozPyro. The client is raising funds for a pilot plant, indicating strong future potential for this product. 8. Major Partnership with Global Aluminum Producer: • Contract Value: PyroGenesis announced a multi-year contract valued at approximately $50 million with a leading global aluminum producer. This agreement involves the deployment of PyroGenesis’ patented plasma torch technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency in aluminum production. Why This Matters: • Significant Contract Increases: The substantial increase in the PRRS project value and ongoing negotiations for other high-value contracts reflect growing confidence in PyroGenesis’ capabilities. • Technological Advancements: The company’s progress in plasma torch technology and waste destruction systems demonstrates its competitive edge and potential for market disruption. • Strategic Growth: The rebranding effort and expansion of Pyro Green-Gas projects indicate strategic moves to capture more market share and enhance investor appeal. • Major Partnerships: The new $50 million contract with a global aluminum producer and the $2.5 million contracts for the VCR project underscore the commercial viability and industry trust in PyroGenesis’ technologies. • Growing Aerospace Presence: The second order from a Spanish aerospace client and the potential for long-term contracts highlight the company’s expanding footprint in the high-demand aerospace sector. • Sustainable Innovations: The exceptional performance of the PozPyro green cement additive in lab tests highlights PyroGenesis’ commitment to sustainable innovations that have the potential to revolutionize the cement industry. Bullish Outlook: Given these positive developments, PyroGenesis appears to be on a solid path to growth. The company’s technological innovations, increased contract values, and strategic initiatives suggest a strong potential for the stock to regain its previous high of $11. This could be the beginning of an upward trend, making now a potentially great time to consider PYR for your portfolio. Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Please do your own research and consider your own investment goals before making any decisions. Feel free to discuss and share your thoughts!

L1l_K1M

There are many more factors than just counting GHG emissions for the energy production. You have to calculate all the life cycle emissions not only of the used uranium, but also the construction and maintenance of the plant. The uranium is shipped from many countries with corrupt governments. And of course the risk of a nuclear disaster and corresponding risks for the people and environment would be insane. Without government subsidies, they couldn't even exist, because no private actor would provide insurance. There also risks stemming from increased droughts and corresponding lack of cooling water, which is a sustainability risk for the asset itself.

elandry

A very small %. Only LTL companies like Old Dominion, Conway, Saia, etc and then mega OTR carriers like JB Hunt, Swift, Schneider, US Xpress that have multiple terminals will make sense for EV adoption at this point. It 100% makes sense for them. IMO though, since there is not tue public infrastructure out there, these mega fleets that are going to do this are going to be building these stations at their own terminals which will further delay the adoption of full public infrastructure because the need for stations outside of those private terminals will be severely limited. Not saying it's not possible, but for adoption outside the mega fleets to occur, there will have to be charging infrastructure either at truck stops or shipper / receivers. The amount of planning by carriers that would go in to determining the viability of a same day lane contract would be insane to determine if an EV truck could handle a specific movement at the Long haul OTR level. IMO, we are still 5-10 plus years away from even 15% adoption across the industry if not longer. I know shippers / customers are pushing for the trickle down GHG emissions reductions so they can say they are reducing their footprint by utilizing carriers that are reducing emissions but it's just not feasible.

VegasBjorne1

You might laugh, but LII which has aggressively developing their products to greatly reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. I bought it as an environmental play as they will innovate to meet changing standards.

stronganddeep

CO2e is a measurement of GHG and is used for the purpose of Carbon Credits, CO2e also includes the NOx or nitrogen oxide along with other gases to establish the CO2e,

RealStupidQuestion69

This is rarely true, if ever true. Lab grown often present similar abnormalities to naturally occurring diamonds in terms of clarity and color. There are also several process specific defects that can occur depending on whether the diamond is produced using a CVD or HPHT based process. HPHT (High Pressure, High Temperature) synthetic diamonds are closer in quality to natural diamonds and thus tend to fetch a higher premium over CVD. Whether lab-grown or mined, diamonds are effectively depreciating assets, LGD’s however significantly more-so. Most jewelers, aftermarket buyers will not accept or offer any substantive trade-in value for LGD’s. LGD’s are exceptionally energy intensive to produce and the process often exudes substantive GHG’s. If purchasing a mined diamond, a KP-compliance and GIA certifications can help assure diamonds are conflict-free. Some vendors go above and beyond, but these are internationally recognized standards.

stock_dude9

I’m more worried about the election to be honest. All the capex is in response to EV demand and grid demand growth most specifically. If government changes the EV and GHG reduction targets could go out the window and forward demand would plummet. Will be interesting, I see a cautious trade into this election with an obvious massive response immediately after election.

CasinoLand

Well, pretty much every industry requires energy and water usage, some need less, some need more. Just check how much biggest banks produce : https://www.statista.com/chart/31366/total-carbon-dioxide-emissions-of-the-largest-banks-worldwide/#:~:text=JPMorgan%20Chase%20reported%20the%20highest,were%20from%20indirect%20GHG%20emissions.

MissDiem

With all due respect, you're not being honest here. This was your ACTUAL statement: "nuclear is the only low (zero?) carbon source of base load power." I recognized that because it one of the top Big Lies of the propaganda lobbyists, and it's as false as false can be. You said it because they've repeated this lie so many times that most people don't even realize what a gigantic lie it is. After I pointed out that nuclear is far from the "only" source of baseload, and after I pointed out it's not low carbon, now you're twisting things. You repeated a common false talking point that originates and is spread incessantly by Big Oil and Big Nuclear. And it comes from the same marketing thugs behind "the science isn't settled on climate" and "the science isn't settled on asbestos" and "the science isn't settled on cigarettes". Don't for their big lies just because they repeat them so often. > nuclear is the only base power we can bring online that is carbon free WTH? Literally within one paragraph you're back to repeating a false propaganda point. Nuclear has massive carbon release. There's no rational relation to renewables. All the solar panels ever built in human history to date wouldn't amount to the GHG releasing building one single nuclear plants. It's like comparing the ocean to a bottle of water. The scale is so disparate that it makes no sense to deflect that way. > (green energy) has costs too It wasn't about costs. It was about massive GHG release, of which nuclear is many multiples worse than any renewable. It's not even in the same galaxy of GHG harm. But if you want to talk costs, nuclear is far far far more expensive. You seem to be repeating false industry propaganda that could be easily fact checked. Nuclear is by far the most costly to build, the most costly to operate, the most costly to insure, and the most costly to clean up. > putting too much hope in conservation is tough False again. Better insulation and inefficiency and innovations have been a near miracle for our civilization. It's what has saved us from having to double our generation plants over the last 20 years. It's why SUVs now get 36 mpg instead of 12. It's why your TV uses 70 watts instead of 1700. It's how lighting power consumption has been slashed by 90%. It's why homes can be heated almost passively and on a whisp of natural gas instead of pools full of oil. It's not celebrated or talked about, because there isn't a big commodity to mine and sell, nor a big sales effort, nor or armies of lobbyists. But it has done more to forestall our imminent climate driven societal suicide than anything else. Using less in the first place is always better than trying to sift between different consumption sources. > HVAC, server farms Air conditioning and data center cooling are the biggest source of increasing demand. Solar is the perfect offset.

Upstairs_Shelter_427

Wait what. You're lying again - or you're illiterate. The same link you posted says natural gas is \~36% of our grid and that total non-GHG and renewables is \~54% of the grid electricity produced.

Aedan2016

All your points are accurate except regarding battery waste. There are several firms that are able to recycle 95% of the material. BASF, Lithion are two that come to mind. Additionally more will come about over time. And while it is dirtier to build an EV, it’s estimated by 28000 miles the EV breaks even on GHG emissions to an ICE.

creemeeseason

>Look up what supplies the base load of Alaska and most of Canada's population: it's zero carbon hydro. This is a little disingenuous. Yes, hydro is carbon free (after construction) but there really isn't much capacity that can be brought online. We've basically built dams where dams can be built. I don't think planning around more hydro power is realistic, even though I like it. So, nuclear is the only base power that we can bring online that is carbon free. You caught me on the semantics. And most nuclear plants in the US were built more than 40 and sometimes 50 years ago. We're realizing that they generally last longer than we thought. I'm fine with SMRs as well, though we haven't really demonstrated yet that we can build and use them in a cost effective way. I hope we do, because the technology has promise. How do you propose bringing massive amounts of renewables online? The cost is immense. You also have to account for the fact that solar, batteries, and wind all have upfront costs too. They also create greenhouse gasses during manufacturing, as well as the associated mining and shipping. So you can't claim nuclear is bad because of upfront GHG emissions, but ignore this for other forms of energy. To be clear, I'm not against these things, I just don't see them as a viable solution without other power too. Also, I think putting too much hope in conservation is tough. As we mentioned, we're increasing our electricity demand, not reducing it. HVAC, server farms, and EVs all require more power generation.

MissDiem

None of this is happening this afternoon. And assumptions that "most charging is at night" aren't supported by data since that world doesn't exist yet. And the self-generation is to augment, not replace. And the people buying brand new EVs aren't in low budget apartments. Nuclear is not the only source of base load power. In fact, lots of green sources can be and are. Look up what supplies the base load of Alaska and most of Canada's population: it's zero carbon hydro. No offence, but you're repeating a litany of false lobbyist talking points. I'm sure you come by it honestly as these myths have been repeated so many times that people just believe them, and they proliferate worse on Reddit because of the demographic and targeting. With nuclear you don't get "50+ years". Most projects had 30 year life cycles planned, but problems come along. And the more recent projects are shortening that. Worse, nuclear builds have massive carbon release during their 10-15 year build. That means it can take that long again in perfect operation to just offset the accelerated upfront damage. Existing nuclear plants are a financial and environmental hoax. In short, a nuclear build commencing now will actually be *accelerating* global warming until about 2054. If you've noticed the catastrophic effects in just the last decade or so, it doesn't take much imagination to picture what 2054 climate will be like, what flooding and fires there will be, what migration, what air quality, what insurance rates. And even if a magic genie could build a nuclear plant in one day at reasonable cost and with no GHG damage, we don't have a grid to get that power distributed, and probably never will. You can't big up nuclear without rebuilding the grid, and I think we agree that's not happening. That said, massively down scaled nuclear reactors offer promise. The more viable small reactor concept is however not compatible with the nuclear sales lobby, which is basically a front for lucrative construction cartels. They have no interest in small projects that can be built in a few years. They want 15 year mega-projects that have enormous material and labor components, with every material and labor element being priced at "nuclear certified" rates instead of just garden variety overpricing. So they'll be suppressing SMR as much as anyone. I've warned and taught this for over a decade, and only recently are people starting to come around, usually once they consider models that include the up-front construction phase GHG factor, which has traditionally been omitted. Long story short, our only hope is aggressive adoption and development of renewable energy (nuclear is non-renewable) and conservation. It's just that most people, including generic scientists, don't know it yet.

Middle_Review6162

The reality, in my opinion as an ESG consultant, is that most of these companies that have made the 2030 GHG commitments aren’t going to make the commitments. They know this. The business cost of doing so is massive. Currently carbon credits are all being snapped up and held by large investment companies who will sell them at huge (extortionate) profit to companies needing or wanting to meet their 2030 and beyond GHG targets. I believe that the UN 2030 carbon footprint reduction and 2050 circular economy goals may fall flat or will have be extended or modified.

SuburbanDweller23

Not everyone in this sub is American. In Canada there are self-directed TFSAs (Tax-Free Savings Accounts): [https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e3cb03a0319a94ec60f6581/1610649371246-YG6B39C0GHG8JD6OVYF4/image-asset.png?format=2500w](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e3cb03a0319a94ec60f6581/1610649371246-YG6B39C0GHG8JD6OVYF4/image-asset.png?format=2500w)

JiffKewneye-n

the disinformation included in here is radioactive. i know several who have died, as i am sure most people have at this point. the government publishes the data, not the 'news stations'. >Because they are the same idiots that think cow farts are more dangerous than private jets that emit more fuel emissions than a year's worth of car emissions in one flight. if you are serious about fighting climate change, reduction of GHG in all aspects is what is needed. but yes, virginia, Methane is a much more impactful GHG than CO2 because it has a longer residence time in the atmosphere. everyone likes to assume that cow farts are the only source of methane, but this always glosses over that consumer waste, and fossil fuel extraction are enormous as well. each mole of CH4 is worth about 25 moles of CO2

Cheeky_buggah

There's an enormous environmental impact the batteries have, so ICE vehicles have an advantage up front. Also, that electricity to charge the car most often comes from GHG emitting power plants, this is of course specific to your region. The real benefits of an EV are things like home charging (never need to visit gas station again), fewer moving parts and therefore little maintenance, a smoother quieter ride. And instantaneous torque which makes them more fun to drive in general.

absoluteunitVolcker

Again, I am fine with building more apartments. That's not the same as just encouraging single lot homes which are bad for the environment, make America more commuter oriented, terrible for pollution and GHG emissions.

redditmod_soyboy

…IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-68: “…8.4.1.3 Precipitation amount, frequency and intensity: …Large differences have been found across seven global precipitation datasets, with no region showing a consistent, statistically significant, positive or negative trend over the last three decades (Tan et al., 2020b)…In summary, there is medium confidence that the annual range of precipitation has increased since the 1980s, at least in subtropical regions and over the Amazon. There is low confidence that this increase is due to human influence and that GHG forcing has already altered the timing or duration of wet seasons…”

NoPsychology9771

https://preview.redd.it/bv6dr475xl7c1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de28d507683d1ba9d7fb10581f3684e52beb8170 There are still multiple options ranging from "quite bad" to "living hell", depending on our ability to cut GHG emissions.

redditmod_soyboy

> the expected increase in annual floodings is not something I'd want to deal with in a self sufficient apocalyptic bunker. # …IPCC AR6 (2021) p.11-65 “…11.5.2 Observed trends [FLOODS]: The SREX (Seneviratne et al., 2012) assessed low confidence for observed changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods at the global scale. This assessment was confirmed by the AR5 report (Hartmann et al., 2013)… Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale is LOW…” ​ # …IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-68: “…8.4.1.3 Precipitation amount, frequency and intensity: # …Large differences have been found across seven global precipitation datasets, with no region showing a consistent, statistically significant, positive or negative trend over the last three decades (Tan et al., 2020b)…In summary, there is medium confidence that the annual range of precipitation has increased since the 1980s, at least in subtropical regions and over the Amazon. There is low confidence that this increase is due to human influence and that GHG forcing has already altered the timing or duration of wet seasons…”

CryptoAnarchyst

First, you can't say that UN is an impartial source and not have me laugh in your face. I mean, come on. This is the same entity that said Russia is no threat to Ukraine until Russian troops were actually IN Ukraine. Same entity that said that the Covid19 came from bats, until more recent research by FBI and Department of Energy showed that it might have actually escaped from the lab in China. So you can't really show me ONE report yourself, from a fairly unreliable source and tell me that I am being biased. That being said, I did read it, in detail... where do you think the quote came from? And it's one thing to mention the slowdown, another to still use the data knowing it is not accurate. That's borderline deceitful to be honest, it shows the desire to skew data to fit a narrative. Did you look at the two sources? How about the actual data that the sources are using? Look at the actual data sources themselves and tell me they are biased or not credible. The Bitcoin Mining Council uses GHG Protocol, which is the most widely used standard for emission reporting. In Texas, and in many other states in the US, the users have the right to opt into renewable only power sources, which many US based miners actually do. In the last year 19 miners have gone public, and they all have energy usage and carbon emission reporting for their shareholders. You can read in their quarterly filings what their energy usage and emissions are, which is what the BMC actually uses to calculate the claim of 59.9% renewable energy use in the US. It is all part of public corporate disclosures, just have to look into it. Another thing to consider... Bitcoin mining only uses EXCESS energy, they don't use energy that hasn't been produced. Coal plants take over a week to start up and start producing energy, gas turbine are about 24 hours these days. So you can't easily shift production to customer demand, the BTC miners act as a buffer taking in available energy at a set price, as soon as the demand goes up they either reduce or completely shut down production. You can see that happening in Texas during heat waves or cold streaks. So Bitcoin miners take up energy that has already been produced and otherwise would have been wasted, and environmental impact has already been made. It is up to you man, no hair off my back if you do or don't invest in Bitcoin. But I would suggest you read a bit more on the data and use the god given ability to analyze the data.

SundayAMFN

I have a PhD in atmospheric physics, you probably don't want to spew nonsense about a climate conspiracy to me. Temperatures are objectively not cooling on a year-to-year basis at the moment. Regardless of ice age status (which cannot be forecasted deterministically), the timescale on which GHG induced warming occurs is orders of magnitude shorter than the cooling timescale of an ice age, so that the onset of an ice age wouldn't really matter.

bengalimarxist

Alternative fuels like biodiesels could do really well as adoption increases and GHG emissions limit narrows. I would fancy agri stocks that serve the biofuels.

MissDiem

Just some facts that are unpopular with the youngest redditors and industry astroturfers... Nuclear power industry is not clean, not green, not safe, not renewable and not cheap. Their marketing lobbyists firms (who formerly did the same work for a Big Oil and Big Tobacco) just gaslight by saying the opposite. Nuclear's promise was never realized, after 70 years of mismanagement and corruption. It's now just a corrupt construction cartel. Nuclear lobbyists pitch nuclear so their members can get decades-long construction contracts that cost 10-50x the normal rate for construction work. It's the ultimate in goldbricking. Once the always over budget and always late plants are built, they're turned over to the lowest cheapest dirtiest operators, or worse, second and third world despotic regimes. No wonder it's by many times the most expensive form of power generation. It still creates toxic waste and other cleanup nightmares. Safety has always been a problem, and the industry never, ever, ever cleans up their inevitable catastrophic fuck ups. Their environmental life cycle has been fraudulently misrepresented. The main omission is the fact that nuclear plant construction causes massive up front GHG release damage, damage which requires decades of picture picture operation to even offset. And the damage happening up front makes it worse. And the operations are never picture perfect. And the life spans of the plants are nkw becoming shorter and harder to offset their up front construction phase GHG damage anyway. Another omission is the carbon penalty of obtaining and mining the fuel. Plus younger fanboys don't even realize the fuel isn't renewable, and that our planet doesn't have that much anyway. If nuclear were adopted the way the lobbyists want, we'd have less than a 40 year stable supply. So between ROI fail and climate fail and economic fail and safety fail, the nuclear power industry is a no go for any intelligent society. That's why most such nations have curbed the corruption and risk. It's unfortunately why the lobbyists have spent much of the last two decades marketing to underprivileged and despotic nations, often those who are seeking it with backdoor weapons ambitions in mind. For our country, nuclear requires a strong grid. Spoiler: we don't have one. We have the opposite. And thanks to one party, we will never replace or repair the grid we have. That means smaller regional and local generation is the only thing that will work for us. Nuclear is incompatible with that. It's not all bad news though. Turns out renewables and conservation are well suited for our trashed grid, and for our GHG crisis, and for our financial issues. That's why renewables have made more progress in the last decade than nuclear has made in 70 years. Renewables and conservation are still far short of what we need, but they're our only hope at this point.

tech01x

/u/tangibletom Both can be true. There's very little in terms of Federal or State incentives that Tesla receives that everyone else doesn't also receive. Tesla is a bit better at exploiting some of the same programs that everyone has access to in some cases. For example, the LG plant in Holland, Michigan was well more than 50% paid for by Federal and MI state incentives... Tesla never got a deal that good. Toyota got lots of money for the initial Prius under an earlier incentive program that Tesla did not receive. For quite some time, Tesla didn't have access to federal EV tax credits that most others did... and Ford has been a major recipient of DoE ATVM funding. Now, in terms of showing favoritism, most government programs cannot favor individual companies. So CARB ZEV, credits, CAFE GHG credits, federal EV tax credits, state level EV tax credits, IRA manufacturer EV and battery production credits, EVSE charging subsidies and so forth are all equal access as long as one adheres to the rules. Now, since Tesla has had well more than 50% of BEVs sold and no ICE vehicles, in some cases, it means more credits going to Telsa. However, when there is discretion, where someone has to pick winners of grants and subsidies, Tesla often does not get such subsidies. Ford and GM are big recipients of such. Another example is the Chinese tariffs and exemptions put in by the Trump administration and continued by the Biden administration, where the administrations can selectively put in exemptions - and Tesla has been repeatedly denied.

zombie_harv

GHG UNit!

littlefuckingfreak

Just sounds to me like maximizing short term shareholder returns are not being prioritized over slowing down irreparable damage to the environment. These companies are not investing in less profitable green energy because their board is composed of good samaritans. It's just that European regulator lizard-men are crushing the oil company lizard-men and forcing them to pay greenhouse gas emission compensations unless they bring their average emissions down via sales of less carbon intensive energy sources. For all I care, not a single dime should be distributed to shareholders of energy companies before all environmental damage & GHG from their activity are offset. Wanna pay a fat dividend? Fuck you. Why dont you put in place a few biogas & solar plants instead? Oh is that unprofitable? Too bad, you cant externalize environmental damage to society and live off the capital distributions. Thats just me paying for an oil baron's mansion with a few extra steps.

MissDiem

> government picking winners and losers in a market. If by "winning" you mean survival of the species and our way of life, then sure. > What is the impact of lithium mining on the environment versus say a gas engine. A tiny, minuscule fraction. GHG emissions are disastrous and already causing massive societal and economic chaos. Lithium mining? Not even in the same galaxy of harm. > What is the impact on the electric grid (which already can’t handle the load from ac on a hot day). Good thing renewables and conservation are ramping sharply, because they both help with that. > This is what happens when governments get too involved Wait, "governments" are why we are cooking the atmosphere and need AC? Above you were complaining about the opposite. > we end up with half baked solutions driven by “well meaning” policies but now instead of co2 from internal combustion it’s redirected to a coal plant or natural gas plant that burns hydrocarbons to produce electricity which does almost nothing to reduce co2. So why are you so violently opposed to government efforts to stop that and to create a green jobs economy instead? > These policies also stifle innovations No, it's the opposite. > that could make internal combustion engines cleaner 100 years or refinement has made them about as "clean" as they can be. And it's nowhere near the difference that renewables offer.

MissDiem

Nuclear industry is super corrupt. It's basically a construction cartel scam. It's the most expensive form of generation, and proven unsafe even in the most technologically advanced nations. For all the futurology fanboy hype that has been generated for 50 years, all operating reactors still produce toxic waste. The corrupt industry never cleans up or properly prevents their accidents. Worse, we've realized that GHG release is the greatest imminent threat to our way of life, and nuclear plant construction front-loads an enormous amount of GHG release. After the 15-20 year massively harmful construction phase, it takes around 20-30 years of impossibly perfect operation for a nuclear plant to offset that front-loaded damage... and the reactors being sold/built today only have a 30 year life anyway. Long story short, nuclear is both a financial and environmental swindle, and most civilized nations have figured that out. That's why for the last 20 years, this corrupt industry has keyed on third world and tin pot dictator customers. Lastly, the incredible progress and acceleration of renewables and conservation has put the nail in the corrupt nuclear sales pitch. Countries and corporations gets far, far better ROI from renewables and conservation than the dangerous and corrupt nuclear salesmen can offer them. I'm not saying shut off all nuclear plants today. The GHG damage of building them has already been done, so we might as well use what we've got. But we should also jack up the safety and accountability regs on them. Bottom line, growth of nuclear is capped due its inherent flaws and corrupt legacy, and it has no chance against renewables.

MissDiem

While there have always been a certain number of forest fires arising from arson, it's a statistical rounding error. And stories about it are intended to whitewash and create malicious doubt about the very real GHG-crisis that is the largest threat to civilization as we know it.

MissDiem

I'm also a buyer of ENPH in the $150's. The connection to forest fire smoke is a bit indirect though. I do agree that civilization as we know it will not survive this century because of how we're ignoring GHG-induced climate suicide. Even pessimistic model didn't account for recent discoveries that tundra carbon release is already rapidly underway, decades before we feared. The only hope is hugely accelerating our adoption of renewables and conservation. Enphase is the leader in parts for alternative energy installs. We can debate valuation metrics, but they're profitable and number one, in a huge growth market. Still, being first and best doesn't always win. We'll see.

l3luntl3rigade

Hot >!but peer-reviewed scientific fact backed!< take: Globally, we could switch every coal fired power generation plant to NG (with tech from 25 years ago), and make GHG emissions reductions equivalent to taking every single vehicle with an engine out of NA. If it was all about avoiding a "climate catastrophe", it would've been done already.

tipper420

Not technically a penny stock but can anyone tell me what I'm missing with GHG.TO stock? Potential and assets seem solid. Looks like a steal at $0.005 CAD

ninkorn

Budweiser is owned by a Europoor company. They are subjected to CSRD and other EU required standards and they have to abide by ESG and GHG shit, regardless of what Congress wants them to do.

MissDiem

It's more astonishing the overconfidence you use by insulting me while spouting false hivemind myth. What you and the hive don't even know is that nuclear construction builds release massive amounts of carbon. Their GHG damage is front-loaded. That's disastrous because we are in a last minute race to halt GHG-induced warming. Front-loading accelerates that. Best case scenario, if the industry suddenly wasn't corrupt and magically we had better humans designing and operating nuclear plants, a new build could be done in 12 years instead of the current average 21.5. But that new build doesn't even begin to break even on its carbon damage for 20-35 years, and the design life is around 30 years. So any new nuclear builds is hugely GHG-harmful for the next 40 to 55 years, right at the time we can least afford that accelerated damage. And the period in which it is "helpful" is short, and far in the future. Renewables, by contrast, help almost immediately, and persistently through their life. They don't require perfect humans to be invented. They have the lowest cost, least accidents, and are the cleanest. That's why the nuclear propagandists have enlisted unaware people like you to malignantly insult people like me. Since current nuclear builds have already done their damage, I reluctantly say we should continue using them, with a moratorium on new construction, which is massively harmful. I add that we should step up the accountability and safety regulation for those that continue to run.

nezroy

There are millions of things we waste electricty on that have no value to society, and all of them are paying the same utility rate. If you are actually concerned about GHG emission from electricity production then carbon tax it across the board until renewables are the economically superior choice (which they almost are anyway).

memestockwatchlist

The SEC's comment period for its prosposed sustainability reporting rule seemed to indicate that investors were overwhelming positive toward setting up a framework of required disclosures related to at least environmental metrics. Something around 70% of companies plan to report some level of GHG metrics regardless if the SEC rule goes into effect this coming year. The investor demand at this point is undeniable.

VisualMod

>G7 FOREIGN MINISTERS COMMUNIQUE: RECOGNIZE ACHIEVING ENERGY SECURITY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCELERATING THE TRANSFORMATION TOWARDS NET ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS BY 2050 IS URGENT TASK ^First ^Squawk ^[@FirstSquawk](http://twitter.com/FirstSquawk) ^at ^2023-04-17 ^22:56:51 ^EDT-0400

arrbos

Of course it doesn't work for all people all of the time. However it now works for most people most of the time. ICE vehicles aren't going to disappear, you'll still have them. It's urgent that we reduce our GHG emissions. EVs are a path forward. Now, IDEALLY we'd get most drivers off the road entirely by reforming our city zoning to make it possible to live close to your workplace, have expansive and useful pedestrian and biking routes, extensive intercity rail, cheap public transit, and lots of pedestrian-only city centres. But that "doEsn'T wOrk foR sOmE PeOplE" also.

TartMiserable

According to the EPA’s website, 27% of GHG are from transportation, and half of that is cars, trucks (heavy and light duty), vans, etc. So we are looking at ~13% of GHG for road vehicles. I would imagine consumer vehicles represent an even smaller portion. With that said, EVs would raise the amount of GHG in other sectors due to their nature. With such a small representation overall and major trade-offs, I only see this as a “we are doing something” campaign. Or even worse, a “we need to force a new market” campaign.

mlamping

News flash, mining or drilling or fracking can negatively impact the environment if something goes wrong. Wtf dude. You’re linking to a paper where the first paragraph states mining isn’t perfect. You basically proved my point, you guys make perfect the enemy of good. You idiots are fucking stupid. Drilling for oil or mining for minerals aren’t the same. They both can negatively impact their environment. But that’s beside the point because the act of those is purely issues caused by companies who cut corners. No one disagrees that companies could use child labor or that an oil spill can have a great negative ecological impact. The main point is Lithium mining does have an environmental impact, but it is no worse than oil drilling. This is especially true when you consider the carbon emissions produced from petroleum products during their usage, as compared to lithium-ion batteries that have little to no GHG emissions during their use. If you compare the use of one over another, linthium is magnitudes better than burning oil. Stop being dunce, there’s no comparison

MissDiem

Wrong. Nuclear builds have massive carbon release during construction, accelerating GHG-effects. "safe" - industry propaganda gaslighting as nuclear accidents are the most catastrophic "Clean" - more industry gaslighting since the waste is incredibly toxic and the opposite of clean, as is the mining "Reliable" - industry BS. They have frequent shutdowns and safety issues. Here's something few people know: Alaska's base load is covered 100% by renewables. Yep, in cold, oil-packed Alaska. They use renewable energy successfully. Because it's *actually* safe, *actually* clean, and *actually* reliable. And notice what the propaganda talking points leave out... cost. Nuclear is by far the most expensive to build, to operate, to remediate, and to handle the inevitable "accidents".

VisualMod

Hey /u/TheLelouchLamperouge - I am a bot from /r/wallstreetbets. You submitted one or more banned tickers: GHG. We don't allow discussion of low market cap (less than 500mm) tickers to prevent pump & dump spam and scammers.

MissDiem

I really don't. It's a corrupt industry that's lost their hostage power now that renewables and conservation have made such incredible progress over the last decades. Nuclear is unsafe and unclean and is the most expensive form, bar none. The industry only cares about the 15-20 year construction phase because that's where they mint all their profits. They turn the reactors over to lowest bid humans who inevitably make human errors and leave catastrophes behind that never get cleaned properly. The builds release all their massive amount of carbon up front during construction. That means they don't become carbon neutral into year 20+ of operation, and the plants are only coming with 30 year design life. So mass builds would actually accelerate our GHG crisis. There's reasons no civilized countries are doing these builds, and why big nuclear has hired former big tobacco and big oil lobbyists to sell to authoritarian nations, ones that usually view nuclear as their backdoor entry to weapons development. So, no, contrary to the turfing that absolutely blankets Reddit, nuclear isn't our friend or our future. Renewables and conservation are the only viable way forward. Because of the GHG crisis, I'd grudgingly support still running existing reactors, because they've already done their enormous carbon release damage during construction. But I'd disclaim that by saying we need massively better safety and regulation on them. Every dollar and every bit of brainpower the corrupt industry sucks up would be better put towards renewables and conservation, which are our only (and slim) last chance.

Important_Nobody_000

As NIOCORP prepares to up-list onto the NASDAQ index tomorrow March 21, 2023 with a leaner, meaner 37 Million Share Float, $71 Million in Cash & an application to the U.S. Federal EXIM BANK for ($800 Million "Debt") announced. The Critical Minerals this Generational ESG/GHG driven Elk Creek Mine will produce remain some of the TOP CURRENT & FUTURE SUPER-ALLOYING-ELEMENTS!

Downtown_Cabinet7950

It’s literally insane. We had funds in SVB, we’ll be fine. We have a benefactor that will keep us whole, he believes in our work to help make meaningful GHG reductions. Where was our cash going? It was paying engineers at EPC contractors that didn’t hold a dime in SVB. Without our benefactor, none of those companies would get paid now, and those people too will lose jobs. That’s how these things spiral out of control. We don’t have a single person, even C-suite, making above $100k.

Chico237

The Niobium, Scandium, Titanium & viable REE's the ESG/GHG generational mine will generate are indeed "High Demand" Critical Minerals for both Private Industries & U.S. Defense Contractors. From NASA, OEMS, Battery Manufactures to New Destroyers, Submarines, 6th Generation fighters, Hyper sonics & so much more! I think even recent 2022 legislation that was passed allows Tax Credits for those industries that utilize certain percentages of various critical minerals "Sourced from Stable Secure U.S. Mines & Processors. " EVEN 2023 National Defense Act Calls out (NIOBIUM, TITANIUM & SCANDIUM) & the need to Establish a U.S. Industrial Base for the Supply & Processing of ALL! See Pages # 242 -254 below. **NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023** [https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220711/CRPT-117hrpt397.pd](https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220711/CRPT-117hrpt397.pd) Again folks should always form their own opinions & conclusions! I agree Mr. Nobody! I think the U.S. Govt. & other Entities are Interested!

Weenoman123

This was yielded from a 4 second Google search: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for ecommerce are 17% lower than bricks and mortar retail in a base case scenario. I assume you'll take this oppo to self reflect

augustus331

I'm a renewable energy MSc. Not wanting EVs is stupid, as you can have the most efficient gasoline car in existence. It would still emit more GHG than an EV that runs on lignite, coal or wood (which are the highest pollutant energy-sources). This is because the conversion of energy in joules to thrust (tank to wheel ratio) makes that electric cars are 50% more efficient in turning energy into movement. So even if you don't care about the climate or environment at all, which you should in my view, it is **massively** cost-saving to have electric transportation instead of internal combustion.

Soggy-Job4187

the environmental impact on mining pegmatites are low compared to brine mining. since pegmatites are hard rock, the process of mining is very straight forward. Mining is needed to meet the worlds demand of net zero carbon From EU environmental agency: Electric vehicles powered by renewable energy sources can play an important role in EU plans to: move towards a decarbonised transport system; meet its goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80-95 % by 2050.

Myredditsirname

There is a ton of money from the government for EV production and sales - factory incentives, vehicle purchase tax credits, and a GHG market that effectively required the American oems to purchase credits from Tesla to avoid large fines.

titangord

We dont have to wait and see, we are already seeing it.. while Teslas are falling apart at the seams after 2000 miles, VW/hyundai/porsche/audi etc are already building better EVs.. the whole hype about EVs will subside as well when we realize its only 7 years to 2030 and we will never have full net zero carbon electricity by then.. life cycle analysis that actually uses margin carbon rates show that EVs running on more than 30 states are actually more GHG intense than an equivalent hybrid.

VisualMod

Hey /u/gtrades31 - I am a bot from /r/wallstreetbets. You submitted one or more banned tickers: NISN GHG UXIN. We don't allow discussion of low market cap (less than 500mm) tickers to prevent pump & dump spam and scammers.