The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Hence the reason we should replace coal with nuclear.
Doing anything besides that is a waste of time and money.
There is a simple way to extract CO2, it's called plants.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Hence the reason we should replace coal with nuclear.

It is one of the options.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Doing anything besides that is a waste of time and money.

Depends on the time and money involved.
If you plan PV roofing you can have it installed and working in days.
If you plan a new nuclear power plant you could spend decades getting the paperwork done.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

There is a simple way to extract CO2, it's called plants.

Yes definitely.
Sadly we do not have enough space for them to reduce CO2 levels signigicantly.
The opposite is happening. Forests are cut or burned down for agriculture which locks way less carbon than the trees did.
There's enough CO2 in the air for plants - just not enough fertile land, water and nutrients, nor the capacity to prevent it from decomposing into the next step of the carbon cycle.

Which points to the oceans for a glimmer of hope:

The ocean can be conceptually divided into a surface layer within which water makes frequent (daily to annual) contact with the atmosphere, and a deep layer below the typically mixed layer depth of a few hundred meters or less, within which the time between consecutive contacts may be centuries. The dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in the surface layer is exchanged rapidly with the atmosphere, maintaining equilibrium. Partly because its concentration of DIC is about 15% higher[18] but mainly due to its larger volume, the deep ocean contains far more carbon—it's the largest pool of actively cycled carbon in the world, containing 50 times more than the atmosphere[3]—but the timescale to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere is hundreds of years: the exchange of carbon between the two layers, driven by thermohaline circulation, is slow.[3]
...
Oceanic absorption of CO2 is one of the most important forms of carbon sequestering limiting the human-caused rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, this process is limited by a number of factors. CO2 absorption makes water more acidic, which affects ocean biosystems. The projected rate of increasing oceanic acidity could slow the biological precipitation of calcium carbonates, thus decreasing the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.[19][20]

(see also oceanic carbon cycle).

CO2, dissolved in water, is heavier than water and will very slowly sink down. An enormous amount of CO2 is already stored in the deep ocean. If we have several hundreds of years most of the carbon in the atmosphere and shallower seas will have ended up there. So if we don't overdo our fossil fuel burning the ocean will accept the excess over time.

At some point in the far future we must neutralize the carbon cycle though, or we may have carbonized the deep seas too far. The last thing the world needs is a global carbon copy of the Lake Nyos disaster...

[oil pan 4]

To cover base load nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric are the only options.
All the hydrothermal that can create super heated steam is already tapped and the US is already the number 1 geothermal power producer.
All the hydroelectric that can be built in the US with out flooding a city has been built.

The nimby useful idiots already blocked the first commercially viable carbon sequestration in the US because a pipe line had to be built to transport the liquefied CO2.
So carbon capture must not be that important.

[All Darc]

I found turboprop planes takes 50% or less of the fuel (per mile) as jet planes of same level (similar size & passangers).

[freebeard]

=RedDevilI cannot believe that this discussion is still dragging on.

It's like a microcosm of the larger society.

There's no time to waste though.

We already wasted time since R. B. Fuller laid down the word in 1973. Utopia or Oblivion.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ia_or_Oblivion

"CO2 absorption makes water more acidic, which affects ocean biosystems."

CO2 used to be called carbonic acid.

Carbonic acid is a chemical compound with the chemical formula H2CO3. It is also a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water, because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

To cover base load nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric are the only options.
All the hydrothermal that can create super heated steam is already tapped and the US is already the number 1 geothermal power producer.
All the hydroelectric that can be built in the US with out flooding a city has been built.

The nimby useful idiots already blocked the first commercially viable carbon sequestration in the US because a pipe line had to be built to transport the liquefied CO2.
So carbon capture must not be that important.

Geothermal still has a lot of potential for expansion.
We obviously need to move to energy conservation, flexible usage, energy storage and spreading the load. While wind and solar are subject to weather, their yield can be anticipated - just as the weather.

Those 'nimby useful idiots' may not have particularly liked the prospect of a nationwide CO2 pipeline network, but most of all they would have objected to the way it would be 'sequestered': to drive out the last oil from oil wells, after which most of it would escape anyway.
That's better for the climate than burning extra oil just to produce CO2 for that goal, but not as good as not retrieving the remnants...
They would have been idiots if they had fallen for that scam.

[oil pan 4]

It would be profitable to pump 20 pounds of CO2 down an oil well at current prices. At all time high oil prices up to 50lb of CO2 could be used to drive off oil since the CO2 is almost free, the cost is all in moving it around.
Each gallon of oil produces some where around 22 pounds of carbon dioxide when burned. Now the CO2 that could have been put down a well just gets blown off into the atmosphere. It would have been the worlds first low carbon to carbon neutral oil, maybe even carbon negative oil. As far as I'm concerned it's more plant food.
It's not the perfect answer, it was a starting point.
But oh well that ship has sailed, hit an iceberg and sank.
As we have already established only a small minority of people are willing to pay to fix climate change.

[RedDevil]

There's fix again.

There's no magical fix other than taking away the source of the problem.

[freebeard]

Scott Adams just drove a stake in the heart of AOC's Green New Deal. Suppose we completely eliminate cars, airplanes, the military, etc. and no other country does.

Now he's working on "unwilling to work"

Episode 410 Scott Adams: Green New Deal (GND), Universal Basic Income (UBI), Trump Tweets

No link because it's an hour long, but it's on Youtube.

[sendler]

This is why the world finds it impossible to reduce fossil energy consumption thus far despite three decades of acknowledgement and world agreements. To do so unilaterally places your country or region at a competitive disadvantage in the free market. So in order to be fair, everyone in the world has to be all in at once according to their abilities.
.
NY state has anounced a goal of 100% rebuildable electricity by 2050 and is starting a carbon tax on electric generation to push adoption. And streamlined offshore wind licensing to include 70 GW wind and 20 GW nameplate solar installed in 30 years.
.
The worry is that industry will just move over the border to PA which has the cheapest fracked gas in the world.
.