The main problem at this point isn’t us anymore. What we did was a catalyst to set off the rest of the environment, so you’re right, stopping right now won’t flatline the effects. The feedback loops we’ve started in the weather system, in the Arctic and Antarctic, the permafrost melting, the acidification of the oceans… they won’t stop. The pushed boulder may be an overused metaphor, but it’s accurate. How do you stop the rolling?
The words to look for in any serious discussion now are mitigation and adaptation. Anyone talking about net zero or carbon capture or all the other money making terms isn’t trying to prepare.
Look up the best we’ve done in CCS and DAC amounts. They like to brag on the websites how many millions of tons they’ve done (usually total, not per year). Then look up the annual increase of emissions each year. The units are completely different scales. The best DAC we have is a percent of a percent, and that’s taking energy to run. Then there’s the cost in energy and resources to sequester the carbon, because if you don’t do that, it’s for nothing (but $$$).
I’ve had my years of thinking maybe we can do this or do that and finally realizing physics doesn’t get fooled. Can’t run this in reverse. I’m over it. We aren’t slowing down the demand and the output. We won’t.
Current carbon capture systems are small because it takes energy to capture industrial quantities of carbon, so they are either using some trick that only works under specific conditions (e.g. adsorption by alkaline rocks) or financed through CSR / carbon credits. But if fusion power becomes commercialised, we will be able to absorb meaningful amounts of CO2.
This is not to say we’ll be fine, but the Chinese government seems to recognise climate change as a major threat, and when they decide that something needs to be done, it tends to get done. So I expect there to be at least as much climate action as is needed to protect China.
You used the F word. And you implied fusion working, and then becoming more available. That’s two huge hurdles to count on when we’re essentially out of time. I don’t disagree, lots of scifi uses the idea that fusion or other large energy source that doesn’t wreck the environment opens up a lot of things, but… yeah.
DAC or possibly pulling carbon from water in similar ways is the only mass way to do it, and you’re right, it takes enormous energy for just a small amount of effect. Which without fusion or other non-emissions source, is a bit counter productive. Long ago someone visualized what we’re trying to do with carbon capture as much like running the fossil fuel plant backwards. Anyone knowing entropy realizes the challenges and losses of that. Fossil fuel was so easy to utilize, lots of energy in those molecular bonds, and we could even use fossil fuel to pull up more fossil fuel. How do you reverse that?
In 2022, the National Ignition Facility in the USA was briefly able to generate more energy than required to run the reactor. This is an experimental reactor, and the yield is small, but it shows that fusion can work. Since then, reactors in China and France have been able to sustain fusion for a few minutes.
Anyone knowing entropy realizes the challenges and losses of that.
Yes, you need a massive amount of concentrated energy, and as far as I know only nuclear reactors can do that.
The main problem at this point isn’t us anymore. What we did was a catalyst to set off the rest of the environment, so you’re right, stopping right now won’t flatline the effects. The feedback loops we’ve started in the weather system, in the Arctic and Antarctic, the permafrost melting, the acidification of the oceans… they won’t stop. The pushed boulder may be an overused metaphor, but it’s accurate. How do you stop the rolling?
The words to look for in any serious discussion now are mitigation and adaptation. Anyone talking about net zero or carbon capture or all the other money making terms isn’t trying to prepare.
We still must reach net zero, and that will probably involve carbon capture. We’ll also have to adapt in many ways, but that’s a different topic.
Look up the best we’ve done in CCS and DAC amounts. They like to brag on the websites how many millions of tons they’ve done (usually total, not per year). Then look up the annual increase of emissions each year. The units are completely different scales. The best DAC we have is a percent of a percent, and that’s taking energy to run. Then there’s the cost in energy and resources to sequester the carbon, because if you don’t do that, it’s for nothing (but $$$).
I’ve had my years of thinking maybe we can do this or do that and finally realizing physics doesn’t get fooled. Can’t run this in reverse. I’m over it. We aren’t slowing down the demand and the output. We won’t.
Current carbon capture systems are small because it takes energy to capture industrial quantities of carbon, so they are either using some trick that only works under specific conditions (e.g. adsorption by alkaline rocks) or financed through CSR / carbon credits. But if fusion power becomes commercialised, we will be able to absorb meaningful amounts of CO2.
This is not to say we’ll be fine, but the Chinese government seems to recognise climate change as a major threat, and when they decide that something needs to be done, it tends to get done. So I expect there to be at least as much climate action as is needed to protect China.
You used the F word. And you implied fusion working, and then becoming more available. That’s two huge hurdles to count on when we’re essentially out of time. I don’t disagree, lots of scifi uses the idea that fusion or other large energy source that doesn’t wreck the environment opens up a lot of things, but… yeah.
DAC or possibly pulling carbon from water in similar ways is the only mass way to do it, and you’re right, it takes enormous energy for just a small amount of effect. Which without fusion or other non-emissions source, is a bit counter productive. Long ago someone visualized what we’re trying to do with carbon capture as much like running the fossil fuel plant backwards. Anyone knowing entropy realizes the challenges and losses of that. Fossil fuel was so easy to utilize, lots of energy in those molecular bonds, and we could even use fossil fuel to pull up more fossil fuel. How do you reverse that?
In 2022, the National Ignition Facility in the USA was briefly able to generate more energy than required to run the reactor. This is an experimental reactor, and the yield is small, but it shows that fusion can work. Since then, reactors in China and France have been able to sustain fusion for a few minutes.
Yes, you need a massive amount of concentrated energy, and as far as I know only nuclear reactors can do that.