• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.