Seems like the green wing are being shot in the foot a little lately.
I've now read three articles talking about CO2 absorption and transformation via three totally different technologies.
But I'm guessing that even if those much more logical approaches manage to lower CO2, oil will still be the bad guy.
Would be absolutely hilarious if the answer isn't actually in the transformation of energy supply but rather a chemical one that deals with the outputs of combustion.
Gates was involved in something like this before he blotted his copy book. If you can pump carbon out of the earth you should be able to pump it back. Probably not something the oil companies will want at this stage, just a margin killer.
Link to the articles?
Stavie, I read a million things every day. So I won't be going back to find each article for you because that'll time.
I'm sure if you query chat it'll come back with a bunch of info.
Here is one article though;
Scientists Create Stronger Concrete That Absorbs CO2 From the Air
Concrete usually adds to the world’s carbon burden, but a new formula absorbed CO₂ while becoming stronger than a conventional mix.
scitechdaily.com
Seems interesting enough but it hardly shoots the green wing in the foot though. On and off over the years I've heard about carbon capture technologies but from my understanding of it while the technology works to some degree it's presently only capturing a small fraction of the CO2 being omitted into the atmosphere. It would have to be massively scaled up to be effective and that's where the issue is. It's expensive technology that still has a significant number of issues that would prevent widescale adoption.
That's not the say the technology is useless or it doesn't have a role to play, it does. Cement manufacturing is apparently very hard to decarbonize and this could be a potential solution for that industry.
Perhaps, the fact that I said the green wing are being shot in foot a "little" lately was too definitive and conclusive? Not sure how that comes across like a complete undermining but okay.
It was clearly a speculative post simply intended as an opinion based on the fact that three articles relating to climate technology appeared in my feed and they had nothing to do with alternative energy production.
I'm not sure how I'd think that climate technology doesn't fall under the climate science banner and isn't a part of going greener, but again, okay.
Perhaps it was the post's speculative closing which clearly suggests that I don't know who the winner will be but that it would be funny if wasn't the alternative energy crowd.
I think you don't really have a point and I'd suggest being a little more circumspect with your arrogance.
Your originally post was a pop at climate change action advocates. You know it, I know it. Stop pretending otherwise.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me how nuclear isnt a part of the solution.
As far as I can tell it's exceedingly safe these days, and support for it is at its highest level in over fifty years. It also seems to me that it's the only answer that truly covers the expected spike in energy demand.
China, the UK, India, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, I might be missing a few, are all building reactors.
I also see that Meta, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all investing in nuclear. You would probably go and look up those individual figures and come and talk about how small they are. Then I'd come back and tell you that those guys will opt in more as public opinion on nuclear softens, because nobody wants to be properly first in a world where nuclear has been derided for half a century. Saying that, the investment isn't small anyway and it signals what seems to be a clear shift. I think they know they can rely on renewable energy to some degree but that nuclear will pick up all the slack necessary.
There you go, I've given you a good bit to chew on and I didn't bother researching most of it so I'm sure you'll find something to come back with.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me how nuclear isnt a part of the solution.
I didn't say that.
But as for the rest of your post I'll meet you at half way and not look up anything and just speak off hand from I've previously read about the topic.
The ultimate long and short of it that nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build. It's cleaner energy than coal, oil or gas but not as clean as other renewable technologies. There is also environmental and safety concerns about accidents and nuclear waste. Nuclear waste requires storage for 100,000 years though coincidentally I recently seen a youtube video where the Finn's appeared to have come up with safe storage solution though it maybe unique to them and their geography. Regardless whether or not you think those concerns are justified or not they are their. So time and effort what have to be spent convincing the public to change their perception of nuclear energy. Otherwise production of new nuclear plants will be delayed by legal challenges and lawsuits.
Now yes there is new types of new nuclear plants being developed and tested. Supposedly more cost effective and extremely safe but questions still remain about how viable they are. These could play a larger role in the future but the jury is still out on them.
So I'm not advocating closing current nuclear plants or preventing new plants from being built. Nuclear does have a role to play in combating climate change. It's just in the past and is still is being used by climate change skeptics to muddy the waters and criticize green policies.
And finally proponents of nuclear energy often will be off the opinion that yes nuclear energy can be expensive but let market forces drive down the cost to make it a viable option. However if you go back and look at their record they will typically have expressed opinions in the past akin too well Solar and Wind is great and all but far too expensive to be every deployed in scale. Market forces driving down the cost of Solar energy (which is exactly what happen and now solar is by far cheaper the oil or coal powered energy) was something they inexplicably never thought of.
"The ultimate long and short of it that nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build."
Any power plant takes long to build. That's just how it is.
In terms of running costs, nuclear is about 2/3 the price.
Luckily the mass demand for energy that is coming will alleviate most of the political pressure and people will feel more comfortable putting nuclear again.
Something I'm interested in geothermal power. Yes it's expensive and difficult etc etc. But gravity basically makes it so that we are living right on top of a perfectly clean and actually unlimited power source.
@Plum I mean, look at this...is the barrier to limitless energy seriously just 5km?
