• 3 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 13th, 2023

help-circle




  • I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.

    in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.
















  • Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.nettoGreen Energy@slrpnk.net*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Why don’t we store it and use it another time? Or we let other type of more meaning electricity demand do the load shifting?

    Of course, if you are doing the computation for some vital services, it make sense to do VRE availability based demand side management as much as possible. But doing computation for some proof of work algorithm is basically computing for the sake of computing more, and I just cannot grasp the rationale behind it.

    And this type of article reinforce the “too much renewable” myth. The problem is conventional power plants are still getting in the way and there is insufficient amount demand response and storage. The problem is not too much wind and solar.