Submitted by apple_achia t3_ynmu55 in singularity
BrainBoy000 t1_iv9ovzu wrote
Nuclear fusion and carbon capture
Mr_Hu-Man t1_iva6971 wrote
Nuclear fission, direct air capture, green-powered desalination plants, wide scale adoption of renewables other than fission, increased capacity to store energy, nature-based solutions that put biodiversity at the forefront: these are how we can do it today. Then if fusion comes along: SORTED.
LausXY t1_ivaas99 wrote
Yeah this idea we just need to wait for the tech to be invented makes me nervous and it feels a bit like passing the buck to the next generations. There is lots we can do in the meantime as we're trying to make our own little Sun
freeman_joe t1_iva01g0 wrote
I hope we will have it in time.
naossoan t1_ivaqfjc wrote
Carbon capture is complete bullshit unless it's powered 100% by nuclear, geothermal, or some other kind of renewable energy.
The largest carbon capture plant today in Iceland only removes 4000 tonnes of co2 per year, which is roughly 800-something cars.
Being Iceland I'm assuming it is powered by geothermal, which is great, but Iceland is one of the few places on earth where geothermal energy is relatively easily obtainable.
If a cartoon capture plant is powered by coal or natural gas power it's nearly completely negated, at the very best reduced to negligible offsets, similarly to electric cars.
It's much more effective to remove those 800 something cars from the road in the first place.
shiddyfiddy t1_ivawgm6 wrote
That was a proof of concept plant. They have better funding now and the next plant will do about 35k tonnes per year.
West coast of north america has a lot of suitable sites.
This idea isn't close to being toast. Not yet anyway.
naossoan t1_ivb1t1y wrote
It's also nowhere close to being good, either.
maxiderpie t1_ivat00h wrote
I really wished people stopped looking at carbon capture (as in, direct air capture) as a viable solution to climate change and considered it for what it truly is, a publicity stunt energy companies can use to say they're doing something about it while continuing to profit off fossil fuels without a care in the world and starving of funds those solutions that go against their interests (this video by AdamSomething gives some really nice info about it).
Reducing CO2 production at the source is the only viable way to tangibly slow down the effects of climate change. Nuclear fusion will hopefully be the silver bullet needed to actually turn around the situation.
Hell, at this point I would even be ok with skynet taking the reins of global government and go about fix this mess we've made. I mean, given the rate of advancement in the AI field in the last five years, we at least have some good reasons to hope so.
red75prime t1_ive1jo3 wrote
Extra CO2 that is already out there is not going away if we stop burning fossil fuels. Well, it goes away by natural means like phytoplankton and forest carbon capture, but too slow. Anyway, usage of carbon capture as a publicity stunt doesn't contradict it's usefulness in combating climate change. People just need to recognize when it's being used as a deception (but, yeah, it may be a bit too high standard to meet).
maxiderpie t1_ive38dq wrote
It's absolutely true that we need to find a way deal with the extra co2 in the atmosphere, thing is that, since carbon capture is a very inefficient process (gas density and all that), it only becomes a viable method when there are no more easy avenues to reduce other sources of carbon emission.
So, in a future society where every single energy source is green (i.e. nuclear, geothermal, solar etc.), carbon capture would absolutely be considered a good option to reduce co2 in the atmosphere. Today though, not so much, as every little bit of green energy should be directly dedicated to phase out fossil.
red75prime t1_ive4zwp wrote
Solar and wind power has a problem with intermittency, you need to store energy oftentimes (or set negative prices). With right incentives air-to-syntetic-fuel process could probably be made a viable alternative to storing excess energy in hydrogen or some other form.
Solar updraft tower, for example, can provide both energy and airflow.
ETA: Ah, I see the problem. You also need to pay for permanent carbon storage and there's conflict of interests. Why would you bury all that carbon if you can profit on fuel? It applies to privately owned facilities as well as governments.
On the other hand, going carbon negative requires political will in either case, and if you go air-to-fuel route you'll have carbon-capture-ready infrastructure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments