3 ms·

> probably never will because its a conservation of energy problem But we have this gravitationally contained fusion reactor in the neighbourhood literally rad

> probably never will because its a conservation of energy problem But we have this gravitationally contained fusion reactor in the neighbourhood literally radiating energy at us. (I'm talking about the sun, if it is not clear.) That is the thing which powered the previous capture. How would it be impossible to do it again? (I'm not talking about "practical" or "fast" those are questions after we established that it is possible, which it seems we disagree on.)

Avicebron 4y ago
If you're referring to planting more biomatter, I fully agree it's not impossible, I think the sticking point really is the scale, can we theoretically leverage this to capture at a rate that matters while simultaneously not giving up our current lifestyles. ( I think the main crux of these solutions imply this even if they don't deliberately state it, the solution has to not impact people's lives "negatively' to be viable).
blueflow 4y ago
The question is the scale. How much space do you need for plants to capture a gigaton of carbon? Does earth even have that much suitable surface? And how do you put it into the ground so it can't decay and be re-processed into carbon dioxide?
- krisoft 4y ago
  > The question is the scale. Ok, but that means the question is not the energy balance. That is my whole point. > How much space do you need for plants to capture a gigaton of carbon? Plants are only one of the possibilities. All I am arguing is that it is not impossible on account of the principle of energy conservation. Not arguing how easy or hard it is. > Does earth even have that much suitable surface? Of course. It happened once.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    I know where you are going, but human technology is energy intensive, wasteful and won't save us.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > I know where you are going You probably don't. > human technology is energy intensive, wasteful I agree. > and won't save us In that case we better lay down in the sun and die peacefully. Because human technology is the only thing which can save us. What else there is?
      - blueflow 4y ago
        > Because human technology is the only thing which can save us. We do technology, and we obviously can't. > What else there is? Plants.
        ben_w 4y ago
        Where's the boundary between plants and technology when you have genetic engineering?
mrguyorama 4y ago
Plants only capture carbon temporarily. When they die and decompose they release that carbon back into the cycle. Using plants to sequester would require either maintaining significantly more plant mass for the rest of forever, or finding a way to prevent wood from decomposing forever on an industrial scale.

Avicebron 4y ago

If you're referring to planting more biomatter, I fully agree it's not impossible, I think the sticking point really is the scale, can we theoretically leverage this to capture at a rate that matters while simultaneously not giving up our current lifestyles. ( I think the main crux of these solutions imply this even if they don't deliberately state it, the solution has to not impact people's lives "negatively' to be viable).

blueflow 4y ago

The question is the scale. How much space do you need for plants to capture a gigaton of carbon? Does earth even have that much suitable surface? And how do you put it into the ground so it can't decay and be re-processed into carbon dioxide?

krisoft 4y ago
> The question is the scale. Ok, but that means the question is not the energy balance. That is my whole point. > How much space do you need for plants to capture a gigaton of carbon? Plants are only one of the possibilities. All I am arguing is that it is not impossible on account of the principle of energy conservation. Not arguing how easy or hard it is. > Does earth even have that much suitable surface? Of course. It happened once.
- blueflow 4y ago
  I know where you are going, but human technology is energy intensive, wasteful and won't save us.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > I know where you are going You probably don't. > human technology is energy intensive, wasteful I agree. > and won't save us In that case we better lay down in the sun and die peacefully. Because human technology is the only thing which can save us. What else there is?
    - blueflow 4y ago
      > Because human technology is the only thing which can save us. We do technology, and we obviously can't. > What else there is? Plants.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Where's the boundary between plants and technology when you have genetic engineering?

mrguyorama 4y ago

Plants only capture carbon temporarily. When they die and decompose they release that carbon back into the cycle. Using plants to sequester would require either maintaining significantly more plant mass for the rest of forever, or finding a way to prevent wood from decomposing forever on an industrial scale.