Direct carbon capture is necessary if we want to have a shot at reasonable survival. Maybe it’s not top priority in late 2023 when we have so many easier and faster things to do and advocate for, but in long- or even mid-term we’re cooked without it even if emissions dropped to 0 today. In an eco-war economy the entire scientific community would be forced to make it work. Look up “warming in the pipeline”, 6 degrees within 100 years would be the result of only the ghg we have emitted to date and we’re not going to stop, like, ever.
Skeptics argue that you would need the entire world electricity supply for direct co2 capture.
Please stop.
I don’t doubt them. Also I haven’t seen any actually viable carbon capture tech.
This doesn’t change the point that without removing CO2 somehow we’re done for in the longer term. Whether with supertechnology or GMO bamboo or whatever, but it must be figured out.
Everything except the last panel. It’s AND not OR.
don’t tell the Germans about bottom right
Sing it with me: “Nuclear power is not a solution!” 🎶🎵🎶
Besides that nuclear power is dangerous on so many levels…
Here is the math to consider:
- Nuclear only produces 3.6% of today’s power consumption
- 80% of today’s power consumption is still fossil based
- Recoverable Uranium would last for only ~200 at CURRENT PROD RATE! (Generous estimate)
- If we would want to replace fossil with nuclear, Uranium would only last for 9 YEARS.
I say it again: 9 YEARS ! After that time, you can’t produce any more power with your plants, leaving you with a huge problem. We need an energy system that will serve us good for the foreseeable future.
The median time for building a nuclear plant is 8 years. Getting all the planning and approval done can bring this timeline up to 20 years. Much to slow. We need solutions now!
Guys/Girls, stop reproducing the talking point of plant owners and capitalistic energy providers. Nuclear power is not a solution for the global scale problem of energy production.
SOURCES:
I’m confident nuclear fusion is the way to go, but we may already be too late :(
Hey maybe some room temperature superconductor will come in clutch but it’s not looking so great.
Totally! Some cool andvancement in a technology like that would bring us much closer to “easier” renewable energy sources. And I hope they will find solution for our (more distant) future.
However, we can’t just wait for it. We need solutions NOW - and they exist in conventional renewable energy technologies. I mean, we have that massive fusion reactor in a save distance from our planet that delivers huge amounts of energy to us for free. We just have to tap into it. 😇
Yes let’s build a Dyson sphere! XD
Yes it is.
https://i.imgur.com/1DBYkIG.png
https://i.imgur.com/qKzwxuj.jpeg
You’re a bad shill. Go away!
Person 1: Here are my Sources! (Newsarticels and Data-Tools)
Person 2: You are Wrong! Have a look at this (Imgur-Link)
Guess who has a better support for their claim?
Last one is based
What is the argument against nuclear energy as a transionary baseload supply?
It’s when nuclear is used as a proposal ignoring the amount of time and expense it takes to bring a new plant online. They know it won’t happen, but they’ve put off the solar and wind project a few more years in the process.
Weird I’ve never heard any one argue we should use one instead of the other. Obviously we need all forms of alternative energy being explored so we can create as many viable options as possible
