MightyH20 t1_jee6cbs wrote

Your example is irrelevant since France already has lower targets. And yet, Germany has progressed more as opposed to France in % reduction.

COP target Germany: cut 65% emissions from 1990 emission level. Current emissions from 1050 to 675 million tonnes. Reduction = 36%

COP target France: cut 40% emissions from 1990 emission level. Current emissions from 400 to 300 million tonnes. Reduction = 25%.

Not only is France behind in the progress to meet targets, the emissions in absolute numbers are way less too.


MightyH20 t1_jdzk1vi wrote

No offense but all these numbers are useless given the massive scale of the quantity of a percentage increase or decrease from a reference point.

The only metric that is relevant in terms of climate change is the amount of emissions and in particularly the progression towards climate targets.

A fair question would be how far a country has progressed towards that target?


MightyH20 t1_jdzjkza wrote

The outsourcing of emissions hit it's peak at the beginning of 2008. Then the financial crisis hits and the outsourcing of emissions decreased significantly. Currently, China is responsible for their own emissions which is the result of domestic growth and in particular the construction sector.

Similarly, we can argue that "the east" had outsourced emissions in the 1950s to the 1990s to "the west" since the manufacturing happened in "the west". In fact, China's rapid growth was made possible by western companies and products, yet this isn't accounted for today as well.

In reality the outsourcing of emissions is way to complex to attribute it to actual policy making or distribution of emissions on a global level.

Edit, added source:

> That said, these transfers only account for a fraction of the rise in developing country emissions. Which makes sense. In China, roughly 87 percent of the steel and 99 percent of the cement produced is consumed domestically.



MightyH20 t1_jaqk2c6 wrote

Thanks for looking it up! Usefull information that this article has left out imo.

>Today’s 15-minute flight used about 16kg of gaseous hydrogen — half the amount stored in two motorbike-sized tanks within the passenger compartment.

That is interesting. 1 kilograms of hydrogen equals to 33.33 kWh of useable energy. This means the entire flight consumed only 533.28 kWh.

I wonder under what pressure the hydrogen was stored given the relatively small size of the tanks with the total capacity to hold 30 kilograms.

>for 15 minutes of flight a 747 burns 3600L of aviation fuel, or 2880kg

This could be correct though. I know that a 747 uses around 3 to 4 liters of kerosine every second! And shows the massive efficiency difference between both technologies. 3600 L of kerosine equals to 37,564 kWh.

However, the major difference is probably the weight of the planes and that a 747 uses jet engines whereas this was a smaller prop-plane.

Perhaps a better comparison would be a comparison to a standard propellor plane. According to "the internet" a standard propellor plane uses 900 gallons of kerosine an hour or 225 gallons per 15 minutes. That equals to 8888 kWh.


Hydrogen prop plane 15 minutes flight: 533 kWh energy (16kg of hydrogen) consumption.

Standard fossil prop plane 15 minutes flight: 8888 kWh energy (225 gallons of kerosine) consumption


MightyH20 t1_j9nxq99 wrote

Probably holograms because it solves a lot of material cost of producing a screen. Also the size and shape of phone are determined by the screen. With a hologram projector a "phone" could be any size or shape.

A hologram projector is also much more energy efficient (no source though) as compared to modern day screens.

Here is an example of Hologram technology applied in Japan.