3 ms·
That's A solution, but it's not like energy plants are the only source of CO2. They also take many billions to create and many many years, need rare materials t
by azinman2 5y ago
That's A solution, but it's not like energy plants are the only source of CO2. They also take many billions to create and many many years, need rare materials that can also be turned into weapons, and need to be located near some large body of water for cooling. It's not like you can just roll that out to the entire world in time even if you started now.
- api 5y agoThey're by far the main source. Coal burning for electricity is the source of >60% of all fossil CO2 emissions. That's just coal power plants. No oil, no gas, no other sources.
- kergonath 5y agoWe also need to electrify everything that can be, and use fuel cells for what can not. The capital issue really is political, as not doing it will cost way more in the long run. Pricing adequately carbon emissions would be a first step. Nuclear plants don’t need rare materials, and the waste in current designs cannot be used in a nuclear bomb (well, they could be used in a dirty bomb, but then there are loads of cheap as chips chemicals that are much better for this use). It is true that it is too late now to rely only on that. We still need all the tools we have, and we should build as much reactors as we can, and as much wind turbines (and solar panels where it makes sense) as we can. We are not in a situation where we can prioritise one or the other, otherwise we end up with gas and coal, like in Germany.