3 ms·

Terrible hypothetical idea: Let’s engineer a bunker fuel additive with even more global cooling properties than sulfur! We should probably just reduce consumpt

Terrible hypothetical idea: Let’s engineer a bunker fuel additive with even more global cooling properties than sulfur! We should probably just reduce consumption and emissions though.

iamtedd 2y ago
We can't even close the hole in the ozone layer. We were all patting each other on the back for a job well done (which it almost was), but then took our foot off the accelerator and now it's opening back up again.
- noname120 2y ago
  Not true: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone Chlorofluorocarbons stay 50-150 years in the atmosphere, once they are there it takes a while for things to go back to normal. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are also now banned pretty much everywhere, replaced with hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroolefins which both have an ozone depletion potential of 0 (zero).
Sniffnoy 2y ago
Note that if you did want to directly compensate for the decrease in sulfur (exclding reductions in emissions), I think you could just, like, spray water in the air?
- jounker 2y ago
  Water is a greenhouse gas. That might just make things worse.
hoseja 2y ago
No, degrowther, we should power shipping with onboard fusion reactors.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  Not sure if that's sarcasm, given the existence (or, not) of practical fusion technology. We do of course know how to power large ships with nuclear fission. The US Navy has been doing so - for generations(!). Only issue with that is the US military is a "money is no object" scenario. Price container shipping at the unit cost of hauling it on a naval nuclear reactor, and we'd be looking at degrowth anyway. It's proven, practical technology, but very very expensive. (Other countries with nuclear deterrents run their sub fleets on fission, but even those with nuclear subs have found it too costly for their surface fleet).
- saagarjha 2y ago
  And what shall we do until then?
  - rob74 2y ago
    Microsoft expects to get fusion power from Helion in 3 years, so (if we are very, maybe unrealistically, optimistic) the wait won't be that long. Actually, seeing recent developments, I'm afraid the only remotely realistic chance left to limit global warming is for fusion to become widely available and dirt cheap pretty damn soon! Renewables, you say? Nah, those windmills are disgusting and made in China anyway, so we're better off burning good clean American coal and oil (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on-clean-energy-big-oil https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on...).

Terrible hypothetical idea: Let’s engineer a bunker fuel additive with even more global cooling properties than sulfur! We should probably just reduce consumption and emissions though.

iamtedd 2y ago

We can't even close the hole in the ozone layer. We were all patting each other on the back for a job well done (which it almost was), but then took our foot off the accelerator and now it's opening back up again.

noname120 2y ago
Not true: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone Chlorofluorocarbons stay 50-150 years in the atmosphere, once they are there it takes a while for things to go back to normal. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are also now banned pretty much everywhere, replaced with hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroolefins which both have an ozone depletion potential of 0 (zero).

Sniffnoy 2y ago

Note that if you did want to directly compensate for the decrease in sulfur (exclding reductions in emissions), I think you could just, like, spray water in the air?

jounker 2y ago
Water is a greenhouse gas. That might just make things worse.

hoseja 2y ago

No, degrowther, we should power shipping with onboard fusion reactors.

Earw0rm 2y ago
Not sure if that's sarcasm, given the existence (or, not) of practical fusion technology. We do of course know how to power large ships with nuclear fission. The US Navy has been doing so - for generations(!). Only issue with that is the US military is a "money is no object" scenario. Price container shipping at the unit cost of hauling it on a naval nuclear reactor, and we'd be looking at degrowth anyway. It's proven, practical technology, but very very expensive. (Other countries with nuclear deterrents run their sub fleets on fission, but even those with nuclear subs have found it too costly for their surface fleet).
saagarjha 2y ago
And what shall we do until then?
- rob74 2y ago
  Microsoft expects to get fusion power from Helion in 3 years, so (if we are very, maybe unrealistically, optimistic) the wait won't be that long. Actually, seeing recent developments, I'm afraid the only remotely realistic chance left to limit global warming is for fusion to become widely available and dirt cheap pretty damn soon! Renewables, you say? Nah, those windmills are disgusting and made in China anyway, so we're better off burning good clean American coal and oil (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on-clean-energy-big-oil https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on...).