3 ms·
So it’s completely unreasonable. We’re not going to be building 100km2 solar plants let alone a 1000km2 one. Even if we do, something like that is enough for th
by mortureb 3y ago
So it’s completely unreasonable. We’re not going to be building 100km2 solar plants let alone a 1000km2 one. Even if we do, something like that is enough for the energy requirement of a few countries so the CO2 problem would probably fix itself
- foota 3y agoThe largest solar plant seems to be ~100 square km: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
- nvm0n2 3y agoIt says it covers an area of 56 square kilometers. But, it's not laid out as a square, large amounts of that area are empty. Also: "The Bhadla Solar Park has faced some challenges due to its location and scale. One of the main challenges has been dust accumulation on the solar panels, which reduces their efficiency and output. The park is also located in an arid region that experiences frequent dust storms and sandstorms."
- Aerroon 3y agoWhether it's unreasonable or not, I don't think we have much of a choice. Obviously the goal is to move as much stuff off of GHG emissions, but we've done a lot of damage to the atmosphere. If you look at a CO2 graph in the atmosphere over 40,000 years our GHG emissions are basically a vertical line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_40k.png
- mortureb 3y agoI would think that if we stop putting it out there and let the trees take care of the rest we might make it. But this is an uninformed opinion.
- Aerroon 3y agoNature would eventually take care of it, but that would take centuries. On top of that, it's unlikely that we will be able to cut all GHG emissions. Having some amount of carbon capture seems important.