Use the renewable and nuclear energy to remove the IR shield in the atmosphere (store atmospheric carbon in the ground), rather than put a shield in space. A space shield doesn’t address CO2 levels in the atmosphere or oceans.
Comment on xkcd : Timeline of Temperature Changes on Earth
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 11 months agoLet’s be honest, renewables are already geoengineering (changing water flow, air flow, albedo, etc.), just done in an uncontrolled fashion. Nuclear energy or renewables do not solve the long term problem unless coupled with large scale geoengineering. Granted all of the above are vast improvements over fossil fuels.
Thermodynamics is a bitch. If you make a nuclear reactor, you make heat. You add additional heat to the system, either at the source (energy production isn’t 100% efficient), or at the point of consumption (the waste product of using energy is always heat). So, if you switch everything to nuclear, you’re still adding heat to the system that wasn’t there before (in addition to whatever the sun is blasting us with). If energy use goes up, and it always does, it just means we add more heat faster.
Literally the only way we can have our cake and eat it too is geoengineering. Solar shields in the earth-sun Lagrange point are my preference and least disruptive to other natural processes.
LongbottomLeaf@lemmy.nz 11 months ago
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
It’s just a question of scale and thermodynamics. Using the renewables to do carbon capture is probably a good idea, because anything is better than the giant greenhouse gas. But that really is geoengineering too. And it’ll only work for a period. As energy use increases, you will modify the planet more and more simply due to collecting and distributing the energy. Energy must flow from concentrated forms to dispersed forms. That dispersed form is usually heat.
PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
If we reach a point where such enormous space installations are possible with multi national budgets and technological progeess, we still have to live with the largest mass extinction, Destroyed soils, disequilibrated ecosystems.
Then what? Life will be possible. But not as worthwhile as it was.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 11 months ago
Whether life is "worthwhile" is a subjective and personal decision. Different people will have different considerations of what makes life "worthwhile."
PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
I think not having meteorological anomalies on a yearly basis, growing crops in a climate where humanity evolved, and having no dead zones on the planet is on a little bit different step of the hierarchy of needs than what people have different consideration on.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 11 months ago
There are people who live in places where there are yearly meteorological "anomalies" on a yearly basis (hurricanes, heat waves, etc), and most people live in places that don't have the same climate as where we evolved. People wouldn't live in "dead zones", by definition. There's already areas of Earth where people don't live because their climates are too extreme and that doesn't make me sad.
I'm not saying climate change is fine and not to be worried about, I just don't see how future generations would consider life less worthwhile because of it.