Sorry. This is a trade journal, but wanted to share in light of recent convos. Good stuff. We still need to reduce and be responsible in tandem.

Clime works AG

Mr. P wrote:Sorry. This is a trade journal, but wanted to share in light of recent convos. Good stuff. We still need to reduce and be responsible in tandem.

Clime works AG

I read about this, too, in the Wash Post. What will strike most people about this type of carbon capture is that one installation is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the task at hand. So, shouldn't we look elsewhere for a more robust technology? I don't think so. I think there will end up being many different types of technologies employed to drag carbon from the atmosphere, and that a fragmented approach isn't a bad thing. We can waste more time settling on the ONE panacea-like solution that really doesn't exist anyway. Even should we move toward geoengineering, as Robert advocates, we won't find it to be sufficient by itself, and the most responsible way to look at geo is as a stopgap to get us to the point of ending reliance on fossil fuels.

It is a small impact, but nice to see the tech nolo is on the move forward. We may have waited too long, but... Yeah.

Fusion made a step (a leap?) forward at Lawrence Livermore the other day, with a "sustained" fusion reaction. I think it was trillions of a second. But I'm sure it's a big deal to the physicists and may be what we look back on as the beginning of limitless, clean energy. Then we'll have other problems to confront, of course.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-igni ... n-ignition

Fusion made a step (a leap?) forward at Lawrence Livermore the other day, with a "sustained" fusion reaction. I think it was trillions of a second. But I'm sure it's a big deal to the physicists and may be what we look back on as the beginning of limitless, clean energy. Then we'll have other problems to confront, of course.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-igni ... n-ignition