This too shall pass and once it has, we shall remember the names of those that pushed genocides, those that pushed anti science that will inevitably cause the next pandemic.
I mean this is a pretty weak ass take and it’s not even really right. Like after this “passes” we will be fully locked in to rocketing off the edge of the climate abyss and there is nothing anyone could possibly do to prevent it. They will try with Geo engineering but that’s a toss up at best.
Climate change has a relatively cheap and easy solution.
Aresol sprays can buy a few decades of time if things get too hot.
We already have cheap solar and cheap batteries are becoming a reality. We only need a cheap, non-intermittent energy source to provide baseload energy.
Cheap nuclear power is possible and can fill that niche - we had the tech in the past and China has it today.
For about $1T a fleet of reactors could be built to extract all the excess carbon from the atmosphere in 50 years, working in tandem with cheap solar energy and cheap batteries to power human civilization.
It will give us a temporary reprieve at best. We still need to solve the issue by lowering the CO2 in the environment. Chemically speaking, you’ll basically have to spend the same amount of energy to pull all the CO2 out as we got over the past 200 year by putting that CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is if we have 100% efficient machines, however. In reality most combustion engines get 30% at best. Electrical system to pull it out will do some 70%? Let’s call it 50 on both, so you’ll have to double the amount of energy that this cost twice.
Basically, to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels we’ll have to spend 4x the amount of ALL the energy we’ve spent over the past 200 years.
You say it’s cheap? Basically double all energy prices (and with that, the prices of everything and destroy all economies) for, say, the next 50 years or so and generate twice the amount of electricity we do now, and we’ll be fine.
Why comment when you’re just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?
Sure, don’t convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won’t escape?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 you’re talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won’t sleep out?
The reason that I’m talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren’t that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those
Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): This involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, transporting it, and storing it underground in geological formations.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): This technology captures CO₂ directly from the air and stores it underground or uses it in industrial processes
It’s a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.
Are you under the delusion the climate disaster is confined solely to energy production?
Also the laws of thermodynamics say that pulling all of that carbon out the air would be not only inefficient to the extreme and take centuries, it would also use far more energy than we currently produce ON THE PLANET.
I have no idea where you got 50 years from, but that’s a joke. we couldn’t build the shit you would need to do it in 50 years.
How long does it take to build a reactor: 15-25 yrs each
Main component of construction: Concrete, a major contributor to CO2 emissions
How many would we need to produce the energy required to run carbon capture infrastructure: ~1500
For your alternative, it has more merits but the main drawbacks come down to where do you grow it, and how does that effect the environment around it. Growing a shitton of kelp is going to create problems with nutrition in that area. I like this method most but the scalability is still a major problem. The amount you would need to grow is STAGGERING. I don’t know how we could do that and still have any coastal sea left open. Maybe massive floating barges in the open ocean.
You were claiming that a single country could undo all of this. I really don’t know how you take yourself seriously. Look at any data. There hasn’t been a pause in acceleration let alone a slowdown.
We just need to plant trees, and get our forests to grow again. Like, the earth has these fabulous organisms that clean greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere… And they are self-replicating!
This too shall pass and once it has, we shall remember the names of those that pushed genocides, those that pushed anti science that will inevitably cause the next pandemic.
I mean this is a pretty weak ass take and it’s not even really right. Like after this “passes” we will be fully locked in to rocketing off the edge of the climate abyss and there is nothing anyone could possibly do to prevent it. They will try with Geo engineering but that’s a toss up at best.
No one will remember anyone.
Climate change has a relatively cheap and easy solution.
Aresol sprays can buy a few decades of time if things get too hot.
We already have cheap solar and cheap batteries are becoming a reality. We only need a cheap, non-intermittent energy source to provide baseload energy. Cheap nuclear power is possible and can fill that niche - we had the tech in the past and China has it today.
For about $1T a fleet of reactors could be built to extract all the excess carbon from the atmosphere in 50 years, working in tandem with cheap solar energy and cheap batteries to power human civilization.
Its not cheap and not a solution.
It will give us a temporary reprieve at best. We still need to solve the issue by lowering the CO2 in the environment. Chemically speaking, you’ll basically have to spend the same amount of energy to pull all the CO2 out as we got over the past 200 year by putting that CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is if we have 100% efficient machines, however. In reality most combustion engines get 30% at best. Electrical system to pull it out will do some 70%? Let’s call it 50 on both, so you’ll have to double the amount of energy that this cost twice.
Basically, to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels we’ll have to spend 4x the amount of ALL the energy we’ve spent over the past 200 years.
You say it’s cheap? Basically double all energy prices (and with that, the prices of everything and destroy all economies) for, say, the next 50 years or so and generate twice the amount of electricity we do now, and we’ll be fine.
Why comment if you don’t understand physics. I’m not saying turn the carbon into hydrocarbons, which is wat you are implying.
Carbon sequestration takes way less energy than the energy released during burning.
Why comment when you’re just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?
Sure, don’t convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won’t escape?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 you’re talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won’t sleep out?
The reason that I’m talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren’t that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those
Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:
It’s a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.
Are you under the delusion the climate disaster is confined solely to energy production?
Also the laws of thermodynamics say that pulling all of that carbon out the air would be not only inefficient to the extreme and take centuries, it would also use far more energy than we currently produce ON THE PLANET.
I have no idea where you got 50 years from, but that’s a joke. we couldn’t build the shit you would need to do it in 50 years.
The laws of thermodynamics say no such thing. Plants use solar energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere daily.
We could farm fast growing crops and bury them to sequester the carbon, but using nuclear energy is going to be cheaper and require less land.
E = mc2
People really don’t understand the massive amount of low carbon energy we have at our disposal with nuclear fission.
An unwillingness to use it just means we don’t want to solve climate change and would rather have our little “oh noes, world is ending” panic.
China seems to be the only big economy that understands the reality and they will probably solve climate change for the rest of the planet by 2050.
How long does it take to build a reactor: 15-25 yrs each Main component of construction: Concrete, a major contributor to CO2 emissions How many would we need to produce the energy required to run carbon capture infrastructure: ~1500
For your alternative, it has more merits but the main drawbacks come down to where do you grow it, and how does that effect the environment around it. Growing a shitton of kelp is going to create problems with nutrition in that area. I like this method most but the scalability is still a major problem. The amount you would need to grow is STAGGERING. I don’t know how we could do that and still have any coastal sea left open. Maybe massive floating barges in the open ocean.
It only takes that much time and cost in the West, because we killed nuclear with regulations.
Look how many reactors China is building.
I refuse to take anyone seriously that spouts this level of ignorance on technological matters.
You were claiming that a single country could undo all of this. I really don’t know how you take yourself seriously. Look at any data. There hasn’t been a pause in acceleration let alone a slowdown.
Because profits are to be made and no country is willing to take this on and foot the bill.
It’s just a “tragedy of the Commons” situation.
Technologically and financially, it is easily within our capability to solve.
Its even cheaper than your estimates…
We just need to plant trees, and get our forests to grow again. Like, the earth has these fabulous organisms that clean greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere… And they are self-replicating!
And due to climate change, they are sadly burning like crazy.