I’m thinking of moving to a state that’s colder where I can buy land that has water within the property.
I also think to do anything sizeable you need the resources a company can bring. Our problems are at scale. You need a scaled resource pool and reinvestment in that to work up to some of the issues. I like the idea of carbon extraction for example, but I don’t see any resources invested in it from US companies.
Carbon extraction isn’t a viable solution until its whole area is running on green energy. With current technology, at least, running it on a green power source will make less of an impact than hooking that green power source up to replace some fossil fuels.
In other words, don’t rely on heal spells until the battle’s over. They’ll never outpace incoming damage.
Also, as far as resource costs go, planting tree is more efficient at capturing carbon then any industrial scrubber. Research should still be done, but anyone trying to sell a scrubber plant is just fishing for VC funds.
They’re also typically embraced by fossil companies, selling both the disease and cure. If they can socialize the costs of sequestration they can keep drilling for profit. We are in desperate need of a carbon tax.
If you’re on the brink of death, yes. If you can take another round, better to take out more enemies first.
But that’s not the way our situation works. Until the whole grid is green, carbon scrubbers just give corporations a way to virtue signal without having to make changes to their supply line, and actually do more harm than good. Because the power it takes to run them puts out more carbon than they collect.
We’re on the brink of death right now so I will support people trying to start CO2 sequestration even while coal plants in other countries no one can stop are still running, please and thank you.
Does your country run on green energy? If so, cool. Go for it.
If not, it’s better to switch from existing fossil fuel plants to green energy. Running a carbon scrubber on fossil fuels puts out more carbon than it saves. It’s like casting heals from HP when they cost more than they heal. There might be a time for that, but it’s not during combat.
Even if the scrubber itself is on green energy, if the whole grid isn’t green, the energy it’s using could have gone to replace fossil fuel consumption, so it’s the same cost.
If you want to sequester CO2 without putting out more than you take, plant trees.
We are not on the brink of death. We may be on the brink of the point of no return (or past it depending who you ask,) but that’s not immediate death. The world isn’t going to die of heat in the next 10 years. There’s no need to rush to something that sounds good but does more harm.
Most energy production still emits carbon. Adding in loses, you’d spend 100 carbon for each maybe 50 carbon you captured. You’d literally be making it worse.
Same goes for electrical cars. Car engines are pretty much as efficient as burning fuels get, so with electrical you have extra losses (losses in electrical transmission, extra conversions, storage in batteries, then the electrical engine itself) so they may actually end up emitting more carbon than fuel cars.
Want to stop this? Make all electrical generation carbon frer
Air and sunlight are cute but fractional and likely will remain that forever
We need nuclear power plants, and loads of them. Spent fuel there IS a problem but it’s a manageable one.
Even if we replace all cars and powerplants for non carbon within the next ten years, it’ll still take centuries for the atmosphere to return to normal.
Want to carbon capture? That is HARD because of loads of technical problems but one to keep in mind: all that carbon (yes yes, CO2) in the air is because we took energy from a system and used it. CO2 was the result. You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back. With losses in conversion, you’ll need to spend probably double that. With what nature can remove by itself, you mght get a 10% discount.
What does this mean? We need to spend the same amount of energy as we generated over the past two centuries on top of the energy we need every day to be able to capture all that CO2. That is a metric shit tonne of CO2 and capturing it requires first and foremost that ALL our energy production is CO2 free.
Ah also: for technical reasons airplanes will never be electrical, cargo trucks neither. Yeah yeah, tesla truck blah, nobody will use it and musk, besides being an absolute moron, is also a scammer. Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight. Think batteries will magically become 2000% more efficient? They won’t. Batteries are pretty much elat the roof of what’s possible and barring some revolutionary new energy storage that may or may not exist, batteries won’t become much more efficient beyond maybe tops 30% more than we have today. Either way, cargo trucks d Airplanes need light batteries and even li-ion batteries (lithium being the lightest metal) won’t cut it. Cargo trucks would lost most of their cargo capacity in batteries or would require recharging (and waiting for hours) way WAY too many times. Fuel based trucks lose their gas whilst driving and become lighter. This adds range and cargo weight. Electrical ones don’t. Electrical (heavy) trucks aren’t practical and won’t be used.
Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.
Same for airplanes. A laptop battery in and airplane is risky. An electrical plane would require 50-70% of it’s weight in batteries (so we transport 100 people instead of 300) and of that thing catches fire, which happens a lot, those 100 people are screeeeewed.
Hydrogen also won’t work as the atoms in the gas are so small that they escape though just about everything. You’ll need very heavy tanks to transport it compressed enough so you’ll again lose the “weight war”, if you will.
So we’ll continue puahing CO2 in the air with airplanes and trucks, but cars are doable. Powerplants are doable.
But look at the will of politicians. More and more politicians are willing to lie about climate change because that’s what their conspiracy theory believing base believe, so they’ll happily parrot that bullshit because they’ll watch the world burn if it means they can rule the ashes.
Then there are the millions of scammers with perpetual motion machines or their magic clean water from air machines or their Hyperloop ideas that were refuted over a century ago yet we spend literally billions into that because humanity is stupid and dickish…
I dunno. This can be solved if we wanted to but I think humanity in part doesn’t care. The young just watch TikTok, the old are too dumb, somehow.
Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that! And if you try to say anything about that, you get the army of trained retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it) yelling over you that theyr read a Facebook post saying that science is evil.
In a sidenote, various diseases that were nearly eradicated are coming back as well because of anti vaxxers now. Humans suck.
So before you can even start thinking about solving this you first need to fix the retard problem. People need to start believing in science and reality again because too many people are now with their heads stuck in fantasy world where “god would never allow this” or "scientists are evil because EVERY GODDAMN TV SHOW AND MOVIE NOW SHOWS EVIL SCIENTISTS.
/rant.
But I do encourage you to tell me I’m worng in anything I said. Please, if you think there is a solution, please please tell me
Hey, so be careful if you’re planning to move up north-up north.
The ground has started exploding in some areas that have permafrost, and some of the lakes are starting to release a lot of methane. Think Alaska and Siberia.
The weather is probably going to be fucky in one way or another everywhere you go. I don’t think there will be an area that you can move to to really escape climate change. Wildfires are kicking the butts of many communities that are further north, and the winter ice storms that happen are pretty deadly too. I can’t imagine that those things will go away or improve anytime soon, since they are heavily thought to be linked to climate change.
Some of the great lakes are so polluted now that the governments of both the US and Canada have recommend a safe yearly maximum number of fish to consume. The limit for at least one of those species is literally zero, due to how much fish absorb from the water around them. These are “forever chemicals” that are being absorbed.
We still need to try to work on climate change, regardless of location. I hope that people don’t think moving north will protect them from the effects of climate change, because it probably really won’t.
I know that you probably already know that, but I would like more people to see this stuff. I’ve seen too many people saying that they think just moving up north will make them safe from climate change.
Thanks for sharing some info. And no I didn’t know that. I appreciate that it was a mild sharing of info. I’m from New England and I think even just getting back to home and leaving the intense heat of California would feel far more comfortable.
You’d be surprised what living on the other side of the mountain - in silicon valley - brings for heat. Santa Cruz feels nice normal and cool to me while the valley just gets so scorching it’s almost untenable living here.
I’m thinking of moving to a state that’s colder where I can buy land that has water within the property.
I also think to do anything sizeable you need the resources a company can bring. Our problems are at scale. You need a scaled resource pool and reinvestment in that to work up to some of the issues. I like the idea of carbon extraction for example, but I don’t see any resources invested in it from US companies.
Carbon extraction isn’t a viable solution until its whole area is running on green energy. With current technology, at least, running it on a green power source will make less of an impact than hooking that green power source up to replace some fossil fuels.
In other words, don’t rely on heal spells until the battle’s over. They’ll never outpace incoming damage.
Also, as far as resource costs go, planting tree is more efficient at capturing carbon then any industrial scrubber. Research should still be done, but anyone trying to sell a scrubber plant is just fishing for VC funds.
Yes, I was going to mention trees too, but I wasn’t sure of the impact.
They’re also typically embraced by fossil companies, selling both the disease and cure. If they can socialize the costs of sequestration they can keep drilling for profit. We are in desperate need of a carbon tax.
You need those heal spells to stop the incoming damage from killing you immediately though.
If you’re on the brink of death, yes. If you can take another round, better to take out more enemies first.
But that’s not the way our situation works. Until the whole grid is green, carbon scrubbers just give corporations a way to virtue signal without having to make changes to their supply line, and actually do more harm than good. Because the power it takes to run them puts out more carbon than they collect.
We’re on the brink of death right now so I will support people trying to start CO2 sequestration even while coal plants in other countries no one can stop are still running, please and thank you.
Does your country run on green energy? If so, cool. Go for it.
If not, it’s better to switch from existing fossil fuel plants to green energy. Running a carbon scrubber on fossil fuels puts out more carbon than it saves. It’s like casting heals from HP when they cost more than they heal. There might be a time for that, but it’s not during combat.
Even if the scrubber itself is on green energy, if the whole grid isn’t green, the energy it’s using could have gone to replace fossil fuel consumption, so it’s the same cost.
If you want to sequester CO2 without putting out more than you take, plant trees.
We are not on the brink of death. We may be on the brink of the point of no return (or past it depending who you ask,) but that’s not immediate death. The world isn’t going to die of heat in the next 10 years. There’s no need to rush to something that sounds good but does more harm.
Carbon extraction, for the moment, is useless.
Most energy production still emits carbon. Adding in loses, you’d spend 100 carbon for each maybe 50 carbon you captured. You’d literally be making it worse.
Same goes for electrical cars. Car engines are pretty much as efficient as burning fuels get, so with electrical you have extra losses (losses in electrical transmission, extra conversions, storage in batteries, then the electrical engine itself) so they may actually end up emitting more carbon than fuel cars.
Want to stop this? Make all electrical generation carbon frer
Air and sunlight are cute but fractional and likely will remain that forever
We need nuclear power plants, and loads of them. Spent fuel there IS a problem but it’s a manageable one.
Even if we replace all cars and powerplants for non carbon within the next ten years, it’ll still take centuries for the atmosphere to return to normal.
Want to carbon capture? That is HARD because of loads of technical problems but one to keep in mind: all that carbon (yes yes, CO2) in the air is because we took energy from a system and used it. CO2 was the result. You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back. With losses in conversion, you’ll need to spend probably double that. With what nature can remove by itself, you mght get a 10% discount.
What does this mean? We need to spend the same amount of energy as we generated over the past two centuries on top of the energy we need every day to be able to capture all that CO2. That is a metric shit tonne of CO2 and capturing it requires first and foremost that ALL our energy production is CO2 free.
Ah also: for technical reasons airplanes will never be electrical, cargo trucks neither. Yeah yeah, tesla truck blah, nobody will use it and musk, besides being an absolute moron, is also a scammer. Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight. Think batteries will magically become 2000% more efficient? They won’t. Batteries are pretty much elat the roof of what’s possible and barring some revolutionary new energy storage that may or may not exist, batteries won’t become much more efficient beyond maybe tops 30% more than we have today. Either way, cargo trucks d Airplanes need light batteries and even li-ion batteries (lithium being the lightest metal) won’t cut it. Cargo trucks would lost most of their cargo capacity in batteries or would require recharging (and waiting for hours) way WAY too many times. Fuel based trucks lose their gas whilst driving and become lighter. This adds range and cargo weight. Electrical ones don’t. Electrical (heavy) trucks aren’t practical and won’t be used.
Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.
Same for airplanes. A laptop battery in and airplane is risky. An electrical plane would require 50-70% of it’s weight in batteries (so we transport 100 people instead of 300) and of that thing catches fire, which happens a lot, those 100 people are screeeeewed.
Hydrogen also won’t work as the atoms in the gas are so small that they escape though just about everything. You’ll need very heavy tanks to transport it compressed enough so you’ll again lose the “weight war”, if you will.
So we’ll continue puahing CO2 in the air with airplanes and trucks, but cars are doable. Powerplants are doable.
But look at the will of politicians. More and more politicians are willing to lie about climate change because that’s what their conspiracy theory believing base believe, so they’ll happily parrot that bullshit because they’ll watch the world burn if it means they can rule the ashes.
Then there are the millions of scammers with perpetual motion machines or their magic clean water from air machines or their Hyperloop ideas that were refuted over a century ago yet we spend literally billions into that because humanity is stupid and dickish…
I dunno. This can be solved if we wanted to but I think humanity in part doesn’t care. The young just watch TikTok, the old are too dumb, somehow.
Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that! And if you try to say anything about that, you get the army of trained retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it) yelling over you that theyr read a Facebook post saying that science is evil.
In a sidenote, various diseases that were nearly eradicated are coming back as well because of anti vaxxers now. Humans suck.
So before you can even start thinking about solving this you first need to fix the retard problem. People need to start believing in science and reality again because too many people are now with their heads stuck in fantasy world where “god would never allow this” or "scientists are evil because EVERY GODDAMN TV SHOW AND MOVIE NOW SHOWS EVIL SCIENTISTS.
/rant.
But I do encourage you to tell me I’m worng in anything I said. Please, if you think there is a solution, please please tell me
Hey, so be careful if you’re planning to move up north-up north.
The ground has started exploding in some areas that have permafrost, and some of the lakes are starting to release a lot of methane. Think Alaska and Siberia.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201130-climate-change-the-mystery-of-siberias-explosive-craters
The weather is probably going to be fucky in one way or another everywhere you go. I don’t think there will be an area that you can move to to really escape climate change. Wildfires are kicking the butts of many communities that are further north, and the winter ice storms that happen are pretty deadly too. I can’t imagine that those things will go away or improve anytime soon, since they are heavily thought to be linked to climate change.
Some of the great lakes are so polluted now that the governments of both the US and Canada have recommend a safe yearly maximum number of fish to consume. The limit for at least one of those species is literally zero, due to how much fish absorb from the water around them. These are “forever chemicals” that are being absorbed.
We still need to try to work on climate change, regardless of location. I hope that people don’t think moving north will protect them from the effects of climate change, because it probably really won’t.
I know that you probably already know that, but I would like more people to see this stuff. I’ve seen too many people saying that they think just moving up north will make them safe from climate change.
Thanks for sharing some info. And no I didn’t know that. I appreciate that it was a mild sharing of info. I’m from New England and I think even just getting back to home and leaving the intense heat of California would feel far more comfortable.
You’d be surprised what living on the other side of the mountain - in silicon valley - brings for heat. Santa Cruz feels nice normal and cool to me while the valley just gets so scorching it’s almost untenable living here.