4 ms·
We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is probably s
by willholloway 10y ago
We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is probably slightly above pre-industrial levels. We definitely need to get back below 350ppm to keep human civilization... civilized.
400ppm+ is a trajectory to anarchy. The chimpanzee raiding impulse is alive and well in our DNA, a survival adaptation for stagnation and decline.
We have the technology, bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration, its a scaling problem, but first we have to stop pumping so much carbon up into the air. We have made progress there as well:
1) Cheap Solar PV has arrived, growth has been exponential for two decades. [2]
2) Energy storage is possible. Think underground maglev trains, on circular tracks, working as massive flywheels.
3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
- 50CNT 10y agoWhy not just massive flywheels? What's the benefit of having a train go over tracks instead of having a large solid wheel?
- mirimir 10y agoMaybe bearing scale-up issues?
- josho 10y agoYup that's all true. But when the next president of the largest economy either doesn't believe in climate change or wants to increase fracking then we clearly have a long way to go before change happens.
- opo 10y ago>...Energy storage is possible. Possible, but except for pumped hydro, it looks like still a lot of work needs to be done. >...3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon. I am not sure if fusion is attainable in the time frame needed or it would be economically viable in that timeframe. With fission we have working reactors right now and with a little more research effort we could soon have 4th generation reactors. With reactor designs like the integral fast reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor) there would be enough potential electrical generating capacity to last the world thousands of years. (Of course we should also keep investing in fusion research and energy storage.)
- ObeyTheGuts 10y agoBreeder reactors like fast neutron reactor main advantage is less radioactive waste, there is enough of uranium in world to feed the old light water reactors for thousands of years too, but they produce lot of radioactive waste which could be used as fuel and inactivated in breeder reactors.
- opo 10y ago>Breeder reactors like fast neutron reactor main advantage is less radioactive waste, Generally they will also have more passive safety features and in the case of something like the IFR, an even smaller chance of proliferation. Less nuclear waste might be the most important issue to most people though. >... there is enough of uranium in world to feed the old light water reactors for thousands of years too True, looks like I was really using the wrong units of time. Scientific American had an article where they estimated a 60,000 year supply at current rates. If we switched to the world using breeder reactors, probably more like hundreds of thousands or millions of years of fuel depending on the growth rate you use for consumption.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoYou're on the right track, but ditch fusion and flywheels. It'll be battery storage, wind, and solar: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/we-ve-almost-reached-peak-fossil-fuels-for-electricity http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/we-ve-almo...
- eru 10y agoAnd plain old demand shifting.
- omginternets 10y agoWhat's demand shifting?
- eru 10y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response Basically, instead of just relying on batteries, consumers of power can often also shift when they are going to consume the power. Spot markets and future markets can help here. We already see that in industrial applications, where you can get power very cheaply, if you can tolerate arbitrary power cuts during peak hours.
- erichocean 10y ago> That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon. I've not heard this before. How does desalinating seawater help with sequestering carbon?
- eru 10y agoI think grandfather commenter is more worried about clean freshwater here. (A scarcity of clean freshwater might be one of the consequences of changing the climate and thus the water cycle.)
- JustUhThought 10y ago"The optimum level of carbon..." Such a human thing to say. Between that, and all the top comments as of writing this start out addressing how beautiful the data visualization is. That is why humans are doomed. Mother nature is fine with or without us.