7 ms·

The CO2 portion of your proposed solution is very difficult to calculate. One of the things I say all the time is that reality isn't a simple single variable p

The CO2 portion of your proposed solution is very difficult to calculate. One of the things I say all the time is that reality isn't a simple single variable problem. It's a highly complex multivariate problem with hundreds to thousands of interconnected variables. Reducing reality to such things as "solar will save the planet" is simply ridiculous on the face of it. Here's an example of that: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/09/off-the-chart-co2-from-california-fires-dwarf-states-fossil-fuel-emissions/ https://news.mongabay.com/2020/09/off-the-chart-co2-from-cal... And, at a global scale: https://www.globalfiredata.org/index.html https://www.globalfiredata.org/index.html https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/natural-disasters/global-co2-emissions-from-wildfires-in-july-august-highest-since-2003-copernicus-79145 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/natural-disasters/global... If we look at the first article, just in CA, 25% of the emissions were due to forest fires. We could cover every roof with solar panels and build ten nuclear plants and this isn't likely to change. And, more importantly, none of that is going to make a dent on atmospheric CO2 concentration. We know that planting massive numbers of trees can be a theoretical solution (not fast, but trees do convert CO2 into tree matter). There have been proposals about planting a trillion trees: https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-climate-change.html https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-clim... This is where I go back to the concept of reality not being a single variable problem. You can't say "trees good; more trees; save planet". No. Can you imagine the fires that would rage if we had a trillion more trees? Just one good fire could negate decades of carbon capture or any other measure. The risk is hard to measure. If you care about CO2, massive unmanaged forests, as much as they sound great as a single variable solution, should truly scare you. Going back to your question, when we are talking about a planetary scale problem with a baseline of somewhere around 50K years for a meaningful change we have to be careful not avoid the math that any rapid solution must solve to be valid. If humanity left the planet it would take 50K to 100K years for CO2 to drop by 100 ppm. If we want to force this change in 50 years --1000 x faster-- we are likely talking about a requirement of both energy and resources (minerals, etc.) that is exponential at a planetary level in nature. Furthermore, in trying to force a 1000x rate of change from baseline we are far more likely to kill everything on this planet than to save anyone. I think we need to understand that we can live with these changes and simply focus on adapting to them over time. That's a far safer and healthier stance as far as I am concerned.

vlovich123 5y ago
Not sure why you bring up solar. I agree 100% it’s ineffective to battle climate change. My urging for widespread migration to fission is about halting our current emissions. I think your overall point is ignoring the ability to develop carbon sequestration at industrial scale. Where currently sequestration is hampered by requiring large energy expenditure, nuclear could potentially remove that as a barrier. There are other techniques like curing cement with CO2 that offer a path forward for large scale carbon sequestration. I think the story is not one of hoplessness and just trying to adapt to a baked in bad situation. I do agree the solutions need to be multifaceted. Fission to tackle the vast majority of energy needs and sequestration to get CO2 concentrations back down. There is secondary damage we certainly can’t eliminate and that will be more challenging to reverse (eg the damage of ocean acidification on coral reefs, species that have gone extinct due to global warming etc)
- robomartin 5y ago
  > Not sure why you bring up solar. It's an example of a solution people, companies and politicians are pushing that, in the end, is a myth. > I think your overall point is ignoring the ability to develop carbon sequestration at industrial scale. No, I am not. I have yet to see a solution that doesn't include some element of "then a miracle occurs". It always boils down to a massive requirement of energy and resources (minerals, materials, transportation, construction, etc.). I also always ignores that this is a planetary scale problem. This isn't about plopping a HEPA filter in an office. Following-up on that example, cleaning a mess always takes more energy and resources than what went into creating it in the first place. I have actually designed and built large cleanrooms for aerospace manufacturing applications. You'd be surprised to find out just how expensive, difficult and energy hungry air cleaning can be. One of my favorite over-simplifications is the idea of dumping a bucket of dirt into an Olympic-size swimming pool and allowing it to circulate. The task, then, is to clean every particle of the newly introduced dirt --not the existing dirt, the new stuff-- from the water. The comparison between the energy and effort required to collect and dump a bucket of dirt into the pool and that required to remove it is of staggering proportions. We are talking about a planetary scale problem. Having played with the numbers, I very much doubt we can develop any kind of energy source that will allow us to accelerate CO2 removal to a rate a thousand times faster than the natural baseline. I don't think it can be done. The numbers are horrifically large and too many variables conspire against anything we might do. One good forest fire or volcano eruption and a year's worth of progress is gone, if not more.

vlovich123 5y ago

Not sure why you bring up solar. I agree 100% it’s ineffective to battle climate change. My urging for widespread migration to fission is about halting our current emissions. I think your overall point is ignoring the ability to develop carbon sequestration at industrial scale. Where currently sequestration is hampered by requiring large energy expenditure, nuclear could potentially remove that as a barrier. There are other techniques like curing cement with CO2 that offer a path forward for large scale carbon sequestration. I think the story is not one of hoplessness and just trying to adapt to a baked in bad situation. I do agree the solutions need to be multifaceted. Fission to tackle the vast majority of energy needs and sequestration to get CO2 concentrations back down. There is secondary damage we certainly can’t eliminate and that will be more challenging to reverse (eg the damage of ocean acidification on coral reefs, species that have gone extinct due to global warming etc)

robomartin 5y ago
> Not sure why you bring up solar. It's an example of a solution people, companies and politicians are pushing that, in the end, is a myth. > I think your overall point is ignoring the ability to develop carbon sequestration at industrial scale. No, I am not. I have yet to see a solution that doesn't include some element of "then a miracle occurs". It always boils down to a massive requirement of energy and resources (minerals, materials, transportation, construction, etc.). I also always ignores that this is a planetary scale problem. This isn't about plopping a HEPA filter in an office. Following-up on that example, cleaning a mess always takes more energy and resources than what went into creating it in the first place. I have actually designed and built large cleanrooms for aerospace manufacturing applications. You'd be surprised to find out just how expensive, difficult and energy hungry air cleaning can be. One of my favorite over-simplifications is the idea of dumping a bucket of dirt into an Olympic-size swimming pool and allowing it to circulate. The task, then, is to clean every particle of the newly introduced dirt --not the existing dirt, the new stuff-- from the water. The comparison between the energy and effort required to collect and dump a bucket of dirt into the pool and that required to remove it is of staggering proportions. We are talking about a planetary scale problem. Having played with the numbers, I very much doubt we can develop any kind of energy source that will allow us to accelerate CO2 removal to a rate a thousand times faster than the natural baseline. I don't think it can be done. The numbers are horrifically large and too many variables conspire against anything we might do. One good forest fire or volcano eruption and a year's worth of progress is gone, if not more.