What's the most efficient way to make our carbon output negative?

>Humans are adding too much carbon into the atmosphere
>It would harm the environment if humans started to offset all that extra carbon that was put in
lmao

Dig fucking big hole, make shitton of charcoal to fill it, lay soil on top, let plants take over and declare it national park. Because more we use coal or gas, more we add into circulation, sure trees are good medium to catch carbon, but on minus side lot of trees also just go back to circulation and end up burnt sooner or later. So only way is to get it out of reach.

kill all humans.

Attached: t-800_500.jpg (500x375, 42K)

I firmly believe nuclear energy is the way to go. Unfortunately faggots get scared as soon as they hear "nuclear". We're at a point with technology where it's so fucking safe and clean, but oh fucking no it's too spooky for most

Kill off all of Africa, China and India. Turn it back into forest.

Cut a giant fucking hole in the atmosphere and just let it get sucked into space.

Some people in Japan would not agree.

if they lived next to a coal-fired power plant, they might agree.

Epic ‘carbon’ thread bro.

Come back when you know anything about what you’re taking about.

You mad white boy?
99.7% of scientists agree. You're wrong.

>vegetation dies off
Good job, retard.

The amount of carbon humans put out is minuscule compared to the amount absorbed and expelled by the oceans each year.

Our carbon is jack shit to what a couple of volcanoes output. We need some means to capture carbon from the atmosphere. Plot twist - it will make plants grow worse, so more dead hungry african kids. From what I read the best way to do that is iron fertilization of the ocean to make algae population fucktouple in size. Then they die and take the carbon to the bottom of the ocean forming carbonates and eventually chalk.

>making a shit reactor
>not putting it on the moon

Become a tree

>he doesn't understand the carbon cycle

Holy shit, get a load of this bluepilled faggot. I hope you realize that volcanoes emit 400 billion tons of CO2 per year. Our measly half a billion isn't doing shit to that. CO2 emission is natural cycle and is a process that every planet with a core does.

Big oil/coal is the only reason safe nuclear hasn’t caught on yet. Anyone completely writing off nuclear because of safety has been bluepilled by big energy.

>not making reactor in densely populated dindu or beaner countries
>not triggering an "accident"

lmao we're at a high point that we haven't hit since 400 million years ago
Plants were fine between then and now, they'll be fine if we go back a few centuries.

The ocean absorbing carbon isn't a good thing, it allows for water to sink even more heat than it normally would, not to mention making it more acidic, among other things. Humans consistently put out more than all active volcanoes.

Attached: Capture8trimmed.jpg (658x329, 140K)

Wrong about what? You clearly don’t even know what I’m talking about.

>let us make carbon dioxide output rate net negative
>kills planet anyways
>what is depletion

KILL EVERYONE. PILE THE BODIES. BURY THE PILE. PLANT TREES IN THE PILE.

Generation 4 reactors don't do that

Loving this pseudo-logarithmic scaling and projected values

Carbon emissions are the main contributing factor to climate change. This imbalance in the carbon cycle is caused by human activity. Other gasses such as methane are sizable factors in the climate change process as well.

This is true. Nuclear deniers are just pawns of The people who don’t actually want change.

Wait buddy hold on are you telling me that you don’t know that methane is just a longer hydrocarbon chain?

BRO there's ORGANIC chemicals and SHIT did you KNOW you're MADE OF CARBON woaaaah

1. Reactors don't explode anymore, we fixed that. Only ancient reactors without maintenance explode.
2. Who cares? OP said solve carbon, OP never said solve radiation.
3. Wiping a city off the face of the Earth would substantially decrease that city's carbon emissions

>carbon
>falling for the nwo psyop designed to convince you to willingly sacrifice your freedoms for fear of the environmental boogey man
there's a reason it's all the most corrupt faggots shilling this scam

>99.7% of CLIMATE scientists agree
ftfy
btw, climate scientists only make up about 1.5% of scientists
their opinions are barely worth considering
frankly, they have a lot of nerve to call themselves scientists to start with

>methane
>CH4
>literally the simplest possible hydrocarbon
>>longer chain

Here's a tidbit of info:
If we swapped all of the current energy production over to nuclear, we'd only have enough fuel for ~30 years.

Nuclear. Is. Not. An. Option.
It is more expensive than say wind and solar, and we WILL run out of fuel fast.

yes about 1 trillion of them.

Saying. Things. With. Periods. Is. Not. A. Source.

Synthetic carbon fixation

Attached: 1558938861113.jpg (350x490, 38K)

Solar is SHIT for the environment, panel production is dirty as fuck

Source on nuclear? That doesn’t sound quite right.

seems like its a way of conveying the accuracy of the technique used to calculate the CO2 concentration.

phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

>As Abbott notes in his study, global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW)

>At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years.

It's a very complex topic, and it's a bit of dance between what's viable to extract, and how much can be re-enriched from spent fuel rods.
But large scale nuclear is not feasible.

Underrated post. This would be the single best thing to happen for life on earth.

>we'd only have enough fuel for ~30 years.
where the fuck did you read this? nuclear fuel in modern plants lasts 30years for one charge as far as I know there is a lot of charges left to load.

Global warming is fake. The Earth has actually cooled the last 50 years

The other way around, volcano output is by now jack shit compared to what humans dig up and burn.

Attached: volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-lrg_0.png (3437x1550, 49K)

>If we swapped all of the current energy production over to nuclear, we'd only have enough fuel for ~30 years.
No, you're wrong.

> Nuclear. Is. Not. An. Option.
It's a more troublesome and costly option than optimists believe, but it's still one of the best options, and frankly somewhat necessary to provide most power. Solar and Wind might handle 15% of consumption each if everything is done nicely, but beyond that we got storage problems and so on.

see

>global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW)
what? that's certainly not true. all nuclear stations put together work out only 0.39TW

Not possible within a realistic amount of time. To pull all of the carbon out of the atmosphere that we've pumped into it since the industrial age, we'd have to effectively spend all the energy produce again (and that assumes a 100% efficient process).
The only way to fix the climate now is through climate engineering. Cover large portions of the planet with white sheet to reflect light and reduce water evaporation, plant trees on a massive scale, etc.

orbit.dtu.dk/files/128048208/Global_Energy_Consumption_The_Numbers_for_Now_and_in_the_Future.pdf

>Thus economic prosperity is directly linked to energy
consumption as shown by a multitude of sources. Yet for some reason this number is never mentioned. Is it
because it is extremely complicated and involves many assumptions? Not really. The answer is really
simple: 17.4 Terrawatts for 2015.

He's not talking about total nuclear production, but total production of all sources.

>exclusively uranium, in known reserves, with conventional (non-breeder) reactors
Sure, if you literally take the least efficient path possible and refuse to reprocess plutonium as a fuel, nuclear becomes a bad option. Why would you intentionally go full retard?

Why don't we dump 96 trillion black balls into the oceans?

Attached: 20580703750_805677c4ed_b-1024x577.jpg (1024x577, 179K)

> reprocess plutonium as a fuel
There are no commercially active reactors running on waste or recycled fuel. Once those exist it will be a viable option, but the money needed to make it reality is much better spent on actual renewables.

without wanting to sound selfish, let the future worry about the futures problems

I believe there are certain rocks that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere when you crush them.

and nuclear is 10% of all power plants in the world. it's all public information. there is really not much to it
what is 0.39X10? that would be your world consumption. what am I not seeing?

>But large scale nuclear is not feasible.
With thorium it is.

I don't think we have enough oil for that many plastic balls. And I have seen that video - it apparently can reduce evaporation but the black balls will certainly absorb heat.

slave economy was carbon neutral

/thread

actually livestock is one of biggest contributors.

You just go invent thorium reactors and come back when it works.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.
What's your source for any of your numbers?

> what's viable to extract
I'm going to guess they conservatively excluded most sources?

Might solve the issue by killing most of the air breathing life on land and most life in the sea.

>>wipes it off the face of the earth

Even the ferris wheel at Chernobyl didn't topple over.
Nuclear reactors don't turn into nuclear bombs when they fail, that is physically impossible.

Attached: chernobyl-park.jpg.860x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg (860x574, 82K)

>I'm going to guess they conservatively excluded most sources?
I don't know, I'm not an expert on uranium reserves. I just like dabbing on reddit kiddies who think nuclear power is a silver bullet that will fix all of mankinds issues forever.

Kill 90% of the world population, preferably starting with the overpolluting ones

>You just go invent thorium reactors and come back when it works.

My country is working on it, and so is China.
Don't know why the rest of the world is so scared of new technology.

Problem solved then. Basedboys don't have to FEEL so sad about the environment then. Then the earth corrects itself.

>livestock is one of biggest contributors.

Cows are, because they produce a lot of methane.
African slaves don't produce much methane at all.

>there are no commercially active reactors
>therefore, we cannot build them
????

I don't know if you've noticed, but the world is sorta coming to the realization that we gotta do something about the climate situation sooner rather than later.
I am of the opinion that spending billions on theoretical research that *might* come to fruition 10-20 years in the future, is a bad idea compared to investing those same billions in proven sources of renewable energy.

By adding CFCs into air

Attached: R12.jpg (225x225, 7K)

People already get cancer from increased UV (hint). You want to add other type of radiation for more cancer?

Keep moving those goal posts....

>NOAA
naturalnews.com/2017-02-16-noaa-got-caught-faking-global-warming-temperature-data-so-where-is-the-apology-for-spreading-fake-science.html
climatechangedispatch.com/61-percent-noaa-ushcn-adj-temp-data-fake/
m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

>year of our lord 2019
>still not understanding net gain
You need to have at least 2 digit IQ to post on Jow Forums

Attached: Carbon_Cycle.gif (400x222, 12K)

>the world is sorta coming to the realization that we gotta do something about the climate situation sooner rather than later.

No it's not.

America doesn't believe in climate change because Jesus.
And even though most other countries SAY they want to do something they aren't taking any real actions, especially with aforementioned USA not doing anything.
Shit will have to get at least a few degrees warmer before we can even THINK about MAYBE convincing politicians to take climate change seriously.
The climate skeptics have already won.
Best just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

wow it's nothing

Attached: 1559508138328.png (1026x393, 91K)

>Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
>The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).
>In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year
Increase your IQ before posting on this forum

Attached: volcanicco2smaller.jpg (400x261, 16K)

We've changed the atmosphere's CO2 concentration from ~270 ppm to 415 ppm by releasing 5.5 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Good luck placing all those 5.5 gigatons/year back into the ground. Earth is under no threat of carbon depletion, don't be a retard.

Attached: GlobalCarbonDioxideBudget-1-1024x962.jpg (1024x962, 530K)

>naturalnews
Boomers pls

Yes there are, the French EPR are capable of running on recycled waste, their goal is to recycle 90% of the waste into new fuel for gen 4 reactors. And as foreign countries are paying them to store their old fuel, they're basically given free fuel + extra pocket money for their reactors

You might want to start reading real news.

The only thing that happened was a guy wanted to verify some data some more, it turned out it wasn't necessary and initial data is correct, and while verification is important it turned out not be fake or inaccurate data.

>btw, climate scientists only make up about 1.5% of scientists
And nuclear scientists only make up a similarly small number. The nerve of nuclear scientists to think that they should be in charge of nuclear power plants, and not all those other 98.5% of scientists.

>he uses facts to argue climate change deniers

Not gonna work buddy, they will believe whatever BP and ExxonMobil pays their media to tell them to believe.

Attached: August2016.png (2817x2135, 274K)

Reminder
>2010-2012
>Incandescent lamps get banned
>CO2 reduction should noticeable, like 5 %
>Population growth insignificant in this period
>no dip in CO2
Huh...

Wasn't that a complete financial disaster?

Can we crush enough every day to absorb 93 million barrels of oil worth of CO2?

crikey
You are retarded as fuck.