Message from @DeuceBag33

Discord ID: 593633457897472002


2019-06-27 02:40:11 UTC  

problem solved, no cap and trade needed, alernative feul as bonus. Environmental crisis averted

2019-06-27 02:40:16 UTC  

I think it's a good idea but it's not a replacement or anything

2019-06-27 02:40:50 UTC  

Really we're going to have to move to a system other than one size fits all, as annoying as that may be

2019-06-27 02:41:22 UTC  

nuclear

2019-06-27 02:41:44 UTC  

They’re doing carbon capture research in the states as well

2019-06-27 02:42:08 UTC  

I’ve seen a few postdocs for it lately while job searching

2019-06-27 02:43:08 UTC  

Yeah they're no where near going to be able to revert it, but density is pretty good on it, also it takes power to use it, but better than solar or lithium

2019-06-27 02:43:20 UTC  

Nuclear helps with electricity gen, but currently that's not a viable avenue for tankers or planes, unless you plan on making nuclear tankers and aircraft and talking people into hopping onboard

2019-06-27 02:43:37 UTC  

Electric planes 😎

2019-06-27 02:43:48 UTC  

Charged by nuke plants 😎

2019-06-27 02:44:12 UTC  

AFAIK we don't have batteries sufficient for large scale transport

2019-06-27 02:44:32 UTC  

They'll probably be oil fueled for some time

2019-06-27 02:44:38 UTC  

neighborhood nukes

2019-06-27 02:44:48 UTC  

And then there's the issue of plastics

2019-06-27 02:45:08 UTC  

100 years using waste from larger plants, eats it's own poop

2019-06-27 02:45:14 UTC  

Electric planes yuck

2019-06-27 02:45:45 UTC  

I don't really see how you'd make carbon capture viable in its own right. The energy to capture the CO2 and convert it to fuel is going to be more than the energy you get from the fuel

2019-06-27 02:46:27 UTC  

Have to be through chemical or biological processes

2019-06-27 02:46:35 UTC  

Comes with the other issues

2019-06-27 02:47:01 UTC  

The idea would be to use hydrogen in the conversion process iirc

2019-06-27 02:47:25 UTC  

Future direct-air capture plants will cost up to $400 per metric ton of captured carbon dioxide to operate, Gebald said, with carbon sequestration adding an additional $10-$20 to that cost per ton.

2019-06-27 02:48:19 UTC  

operational costs need to fall to about $100 per ton of captured carbon for the technology to be scalable.

2019-06-27 02:50:02 UTC  

Remember when it was $10000

2019-06-27 02:50:13 UTC  

carbon dioxide is removed and piped into nearby greenhouses, which will use 900 metric tons of captured carbon to grow crops each year.

2019-06-27 02:51:25 UTC  

this article was from 2017 so they might be closer now

2019-06-27 02:52:07 UTC  

Aircraft Carriers are already nuclear powered. It wouldn't be to much different to get tanker ships to run on nuclear. Nuclear planes won't happen

2019-06-27 02:52:37 UTC  

They had nuclear planes back in 45

2019-06-27 02:53:03 UTC  

really? didn't know that

2019-06-27 02:53:18 UTC  

Japan knows it

2019-06-27 02:53:22 UTC  

🔥

2019-06-27 02:54:15 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/266396659062145025/593635179462000673/ot3CCHs.png

2019-06-27 02:54:37 UTC  

They also had nuclear space craft but it would use too much radiation

2019-06-27 02:54:38 UTC  

amazing. lol

2019-06-27 02:54:43 UTC  

I believe fallout is made up to vilianize nuclear because it is so close to free energy, the cartels hate it.

2019-06-27 02:54:48 UTC  

And the nazis had planes fueled with explosives

2019-06-27 02:55:21 UTC  

Nah, nuclear meltdowns do present a problem, but it isn't nearly as big as anti nuclear people portray it

2019-06-27 02:55:58 UTC  

the problem mostly goes away in a few weeks anyways

2019-06-27 02:56:24 UTC  

Well most reactors over heat weekly it's just it's generally like you said not a big deal

2019-06-27 02:56:26 UTC  

jet feul is pretty dangerous!!! melted the twin towers enough to collapse

2019-06-27 02:57:09 UTC  

Soviet corruption/ineptitude ruined nuclear for the world

2019-06-27 02:57:20 UTC  

it was planned