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.
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.