Comment by IshKebab
1 month ago
Also more fundamentally it's always going to be more efficient to not produce CO2 than to unproduce it.
Ok maybe in a small number of circumstances there's no other option (e.g. planes), but mostly you're far better off spending your energy making solar, wind, batteries, heat pumps, insulation etc.
In today's world there is a roadmap for a < 20 year transition for the entire world if planned and executed collectively.
However Chinese domination, global geopolitics being changed and fossil fuel industries and countries still being extremely large and powerful make even choosing the obviously cheapest (and incidentally clean) option difficult in many parts of the world.
Nonetheless, it seems much more optimistic today in 2025 than say 2015 speaking purely based on where technology stands
> However Chinese domination .. make even choosing the obviously cheapest (and incidentally clean) option difficult in many parts of the world.
In what way? China has basically dwarfed solar installations of any other country combined for the last two years, and produces so many panels and so cheap that EU and US competitors are being driven out of business.
China might be the reason we CAN make the transition actually.
Probably thinking that if it appears China is getting global dominance in energy production/energy storage/car manufacturing, the West would block imports out of political and economic expediency. Like the current US administration is doing.
1 reply →
China is producing so much CO2 it destroys any impact this green tech may have.
2 replies →
It's hard to put my finger on why, but that's a really weird way to frame the situation.
For one thing, most of us don't control any CO₂ production we can turn off.
Also, even if/when we finally produced our last CO₂ molecule, the excess CO₂ will last for many centuries, and we really should get it back to lower levels.
With good capture tech, you can keep keep doing some important CO₂ producing activities.
Sure, it seems very unfeasible with current technology, but that is bound to improve as you work on it.
> Sure, it seems very unfeasible with current technology, but that is bound to improve as you work on it.
That not a good logical argument as there's no guarantee that every technology can be improved enough to be better than the alternatives. e.g. Steam engine tech is bound to improve as you work on it, but it's not going to be as efficient/useful as an internal combustion engine.
History is littered with examples of tech that has been surpassed by better ideas, so the lesson to learn is to optimise the best current solution. In this instance, the best (most efficient, practical) solution is to stop emitting so much CO2 rather than a long bet that capture tech will ever be feasible - with atmospheric concentrations being so low, the scale required makes it a non-starter.
> most of us don't control any CO₂ production we can turn off.
Uhm what? Driving? Flying? Heating?
> Sure, it seems very unfeasible with current technology, but that is bound to improve as you work on it.
Improve, yes. Break the laws of thermodynamics? No.
You can improve a perpetual motion machine but it's never going to be useful.
Should every car owner personally optimize the CO₂ emissions of their car?
I have definitely not argued against the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm sorry, I don't even know what you're arguing for.
5 replies →