Nothing is possible without ice cream. :(
When you understand logic, but not how to apply it reasonably.
Good they’re out of ice cream, wouldn’t want anything to be possible.
This is exactly how I feel.
We may run out of ice cream, but we’ll always have zombocom.
I know who still has ice cream.
Zombocom.
Anything is possible at zombocom
That’s a lot of words to say “nothing is possible” 😅
You can fix all global warming if you can do carbon capture -> You would need energy to capture -> energy generation produces more carbbon -> more carbon capture?
(And i know there are some less to no energy ways to capture, this is spoken in a mematic sense)
- The no energy capture methods take energy to extract the captured carbon. Trees aren’t up to the job, but they would need space
- You could use green energy for any of the energy intensive carbon capture methods
and for carbon capture, some semi succesfull ones are pumping it underground to form carbonate rocks, it is semi permanent, as long as as not leached.
There is sadly no “green energy source”
solar power - silicon is required - good quality, and we are running out of it fast, and also tons of metals required (and also battery materials) hydro power - disturbs the surrounding too much
and many more
2 are good, but not avaialable for different reason
geo/hydro thermal - not available evrrywhere or not enough mature
nuclear - one of the only sources which is realtively very clean, can be even retrofitted to some large coal plants, but either is not allowed to be implemented (people fear nuclear, some of it is reasonable, but the hate it gets is way more) or we just do not want to centralise all this power to some people (lets say some authoritarian govt)
Noticing you skipped wind power there… Maybe because it doesn’t fit in your narrative?
Also;
solar power - silicon is required - good quality, and we are running out of it fast
Rocks are made of silicon. It costs energy to turn rocks into solar panel suitable silicon, but not that much compared to a panel lifetime of turning carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. “We are running out” of the sources capitalism now considers suitable.
and also tons of metals required
Solar panels doped with non-rare metals (the sort you would have left over when turning rock into silicon) are only one or two decades behind rare earth solar panels in terms of yield. They aren’t a priority in the current market, but that’s because of extractivist capitalism rather than the laws of physics.
(and also battery materials)
You don’t need batteries for carbon capture, you can just do it with the power that’s in excess. In fact, if you’re deciding to use solar panels for carbon capture, you need to massively overproduce solar panels relative to consumption, meaning you need fewer batteries than if you’re not able to use excess solar power (because the solar panels powering carbon capture during midday can be used to power homes shortly before sunset).
geo/hydro thermal - not available evrrywhere
Completely irrelevant for carbon capture.
nuclear - one of the only sources which is realtively very clean
I also like nuclear, but now it’s clear you’re just being biased. Nuclear power plants require tons of rare materials built precisely or else disaster happens. Practically, they’re less clean than wind, water, geothermal, and the (for now inefficient) rare earth free solar panels.
Also, there actually isn’t enough projected-to-be-accessible uranium ore in the world to do more than 1% of the energy production necessary for carbon capture. We could try filtering it out of sea water, but that’s more difficult and ecologically disruptive than turning rock into solar panel substrate.
can be even retrofitted to some large coal plants
Not really relevant for carbon capture, because we need to increase electrical production by a factor of 10 but retrofitting coal plants means you’re reducing production instead. A nice way to reuse infrastructure, maybe, but even there it reeks of political wrangling.
when you are thinking of carbon capture, i do not know what methods you are thinking off. so as a general rule, i wrote major methods of just energy generation - once you have energy, there are tons of ways to do tons of things. Basically, if you can write it in a reaction form, it would be doable, however much unfeasable it is. For example, metal extraction, is definitely thermodynamically unfavorable, but how do we do it - energy. Either by beurning stuff, or electrolytic, or chemically, as long as you are willing to give energy, reactions can happen.
This above passgae is mostly to answer your “relevancy” questions, to sum up basically - once you have the energy, it does not matter where it is generated how it is transported, we can just use it
you skipped wind power
I do not consider wind power to be a good source of energy. It is more available than hydro/geo thermal, but not less than solar or hydro (specifically gravitational hydro) power. They are huge and really expensive, and also not energy dense.
it’s clear you’re just being biased
yes i am, it is not something to shame about
Nuclear power plants require tons of rare materials built precisely or else disaster happens. Practically, they’re less clean than wind, water, geothermal, and the (for now inefficient) rare earth free solar panels. yes, technically.
Mining for nuclear ores is most definitely very destructive, but it has the extreme benefit of energy density. Consider it like this, 1 kg of coal, if converted to energy completely - maybe you can cook food for a meal or 2. 1 kg of Uranium (fissile) even at 10% conversion efficiency - you can cook for 100s if not 1000s of meals. Math is simple, chemical reactions just do not produce as much energy as fission. And this is considering very real fission of very common uranium. Think about when we can finally start doing thorium (more common than fissile U)(we can still do thorium, nothing is stopping us other than some big people trusting/investing in it). And if we ever get to fusion, increase the meal count by 2-3 orders. And fusion sources are relatively cleaner (if D2O, then basically infinite and free, and we take Berryilium, then not as energy intensive (“just” an order of 2 jump), rare, but not that much).
A nice way to reuse infrastructure
Exactly my point, instead of getting 100s of meals, we can get atleast 10s of meals, but without changing much about the plant (all the steam turbine part stays same) and this will allow to have smaller cities to also get nuclear, instead of just big cities. And also reduce the economical damage to avoid damaing working condition plants by just stopping their use.
