• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s going to require:

    • Essentially free energy
    • Industrial carbon removal ~8x the size of the current oil industry paid for out of taxes
    • actual geological sequestration, and not just “let forests grow” kind of stuff
    • No more non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        you do realize for instance that fusion would not be essentially free energy if we figured it out. It would need to be something more akin to zero point modules.

        • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t matter if it’s free, it just matters that it’s nearly carbon free and in excess.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            the excess needs to be so great for carbon capture as to be practically free. fusion requires tritium and its not as easy to get as people think.

            • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well we’ll just build more energy production? Small reactors, big reactors, renewables, fusion, whatever. What choice do we really have?

              • HubertManne@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                there is limits to it all though and we have to meet our energy needs in the interum. capturing carbon is way more intensive than not using it to begin with. I doubt that we will every realy be able to do it. Sometimes things are not a choice but just a reality. We will do what we can and live or worse not with what is. Its the whole reason the graph is scary.

                • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t understand why you want to win this argument. Do you want me to give up all hope? You haven’t convinced me of your position, so I won’t. Yes, it’s possible you’re right, but there will be advances in the field we can’t predict at this time plus we’re adding more and more low carbon energy to our capacity every day. It’s just a matter of outrunning our demand. It’s totally possible to get a grip on this problem and get ahead of it.

                  • HubertManne@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No worries. Its fine for people to have differing viewpoints and we don’t have to convice each other. I wish I could have yours honestly but for me the math just does not add up. There are some technologies that are possible to mitigate it but none might even materialize. AI (to get us to scifi level stuff), mind uploading, maybe genetic engineering. There are even a few that have come to mind at times that I can’t recall now (actually just recalled one which is channeling heat right into space). but wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, etc combined with population combined with consumption. It won’t work and that is not even taking into account carbon capture to bring it back to normal which as the one guy said requires virtually limitless energy. I mean it will take more energy than what we got from fossil fuels to bring it back to neutral and that is a lot of energy.