I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I’ve heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn’t grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world
Even if it wasn’t the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it’d be a 50+ year “solution” (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I’ve heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn’t grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Even if it wasn’t the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it’d be a 50+ year “solution” (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Capturing is good for cleaning up the last percentages. All the rest is stop blowing the stuff in the air in the first place.