I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I’ve heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn’t grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world and most cars switching to electric. And even then, we would need to address cow farts, industry, the burning of forests along with a host of our sources of greenhouse gasses. And even then we have missed our target goals by a mile so the globe will still heat up to disastrous levels.
It’s almost guaranteed that one of the larger countries with more population at risk from climate change will perform some unilateral attempt at geo-engineering, which could be either very good or very bad.
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world
Even if it wasn’t the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it’d be a 50+ year “solution” (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
I am talking about what’s realistically feasible with current attitudes and infrastructure and lack thereof, I get how rail is the socialist utopia dream, but we’re about as far from light rail and walkable cities in the US as we are from motherfucking FOOD REPLICATORS.
Also:
It’s interesting that you
Just fuck right off with that internet chud language.
I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I’ve heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn’t grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Capturing is good for cleaning up the last percentages. All the rest is stop blowing the stuff in the air in the first place.
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world and most cars switching to electric. And even then, we would need to address cow farts, industry, the burning of forests along with a host of our sources of greenhouse gasses. And even then we have missed our target goals by a mile so the globe will still heat up to disastrous levels.
It’s almost guaranteed that one of the larger countries with more population at risk from climate change will perform some unilateral attempt at geo-engineering, which could be either very good or very bad.
Even if it wasn’t the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it’d be a 50+ year “solution” (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
deleted by creator
I am talking about what’s realistically feasible with current attitudes and infrastructure and lack thereof, I get how rail is the socialist utopia dream, but we’re about as far from light rail and walkable cities in the US as we are from motherfucking FOOD REPLICATORS.
Also:
Just fuck right off with that internet chud language.
deleted by creator