da2Pakaveli t1_jebh1ej wrote
Reply to comment by jargo3 in The European Union to nearly double the share of renewables in the 27-nation bloc's energy consumption by 2030 amid efforts to become carbon neutral and ditch Russian fossil fuels. by chrisdh79
On a global scale, so far:
So far, the AHF has no relevant climate impact on a global scale. However, given continued growth in a decarbonised world, the AHF can become a relevant factor of post-greenhouse gas warming in the relatively near future within the next century. Also, on a local scale, even today the AHF is a non- negligible process. This holds not only for the direct AHF impact in urbanised areas, but also for remote, large-scale areas like the sea ice near Greenland due to the ice-albedo feedback and impacts on the ocean circulation. The analysis of CLIMBER-3α has shown that a forcing as small as the AHF in the current years (roughly 2% of the CO2 forcing) can influence ocean circulation in such a way that a temperature change of more than ±0.3 K can result in the Arctic region with significant changes in the sea ice cover.
jargo3 t1_jedmsam wrote
The effect of direct heat released from powerplants would be miniscule in the lifetime of any powerplants we are going to build in the near future(in the next 30 years), so making any decissions based on that doesn't make any sense.
The change of albedo caused by air pollution is more significant, but it isn't an issue with nuclear.
Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2218924S/abstract
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments