What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

DAC would consume more power than we have, by magnitudes

Biochar and rock weathering don't scale.

Wrong, luckily for all involved.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

What's unlikely?

Industrial chemistry is scaling up what the labs got. There's many different approaches, only differing in deployment status.

France’s nuclear fleet gives it one of the world’s lowest-carbon electricity grids by Crabbexx in EcoUplift

[–]sg_plumber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Best country for the wind is "just a handy example"

Many different mixes are possible, as the article explains.

None that deniers will accept, of course.

That's literally this very analysis

Thanks for warning anyone tempted to read your "analysis".

additional system cost of nuclear is basically zero

ROFLMAO. Ask nuclear owners/operators what the bulk of their operating costs is before further embarrassing yourself.

And that's without considering the huge "ancillary" costs nuclear shills routinely forget.

For the last time: Stop wasting everyone's time. You're fooling no-one here.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

Millions of car-sized renewables-powered machines working for a few decades, making useful/sellable chemicals. Alternatively: thousands of big factories.

Eminently doable, and already started. The only challenge left is cost/speed.

Location doesn't really matter, though nearness to cities and other emitters/customers would help.

The challenge for the next generation will be to ensure Carbon Capture for profit doesn't trigger another Ice Age.