I think solar power is looking very promising. Despite the fact that it produces a very small percentage of electricity today, it's growth over the past couple of decades has fit an exponential curve, similar to other products that are dependent on technical advances (think cell phones,personal computers). Some people predict that it will take over within the next 12 years, but personally I think that is a little ambitious and it will take longer than that. However, it will only become cheaper and cheaper to produce.
Climate Remediation General
Jason Hernandez
Matthew Green
Let's assume they are free. They still can't replace fossil fuels and nuclear without MASSIVE storage orders of magnitude larger than anything we can build today and afaik it isn't increasing anywhere near exponentially.
Isaiah Cruz
>come to a remediation technology thread
>one post says fuck "new technology or whatever"
>immediately after "Why are greenfags always technologically regressive?"
>mfw
Robert Perry
Fair point, but let's face it, how many greenfags are optimistic about technology solving climate change? Completely anecdotal, but I very rarely see anyone except myself talking about remediation and putting more money into research into various promising methods. Vast majority is, for a lack of a better, less disgusting expression, anti-energy. "We can't fix anything while maintaining and increasing our life standard and only way to stop it is to make ourselves suffer without cars, heating, warm water and transportation" is the point I see much, much more often. It's almost masochistic and it doesn't sit with me well. I'm sure you understand, check out my points here
Lucas Barnes
>Well many electrolytic atoms, ions, and molecules can act as a "catalyst" which lowers the energy required for a reaction to occur, thus lowering the energy associated with the reaction itself
are you mentally deficient? catalysts do NOT lower the energy (technically, change in Gibbs free energy, ΔG) of a reaction. that would violate so many principles of thermodynamics! no, catalysts just lower the ACTIVATION energy of a reaction, which is energy you put in and then get back. the total energy consumed or released by the reaction remains constant.
pic related, you walnut.
>if you can lower the activation energy, the energy that comes out of its reverse reaction actually can be higher than the catalyzed single reaction
FREE ENERGY LOL
this is what brainlets who took one year of chem in high school actually believe, I guess.
Isaac Williams
You just gave me an idea.
Plants consume CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. What if we genetically engineer a species that prioritizes carbon-fixation over other metabolic processes, so much so that it wouldn't survive in nature. Is such a thing even possible?
Carson Morgan
The funny thing about tech is it takes many forms.
Low tech can be far more advanced than you realize.
Yes, because we use way too much energy.
So far as I have seen only advanced nuclear could meet such insanely high demand, but that has other issues, ironically nuclear waste being a very small one relatively speaking.
Thus useing less to to get satifactory results makes the more sense.
Unless you got some better ideas on how to meet such high demends.
Jack Rivera
You can stop deforesting lands to create more carbon sinks, stop using so many cars and consuming so much beef to reduce the amount of waste and your carbon footprint.
Really the conversation is about mitigating damage rather than "reversing" a process that went beyond its tipping point years ago.
Zachary Brown
I'm optimistic about emergent tech. That said, the American standard of consumption is unsustainable and must change. We've set a bad example for developing economies.
The move toward austerity doesn't have to hurt, but painless economic restructuring isn't something humans are historically good at. I recommend watching pic. related in defense of minimalism.
Brody Parker