this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
169 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2411 readers
792 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You used the F word. And you implied fusion working, and then becoming more available. That's two huge hurdles to count on when we're essentially out of time. I don't disagree, lots of scifi uses the idea that fusion or other large energy source that doesn't wreck the environment opens up a lot of things, but... yeah.
DAC or possibly pulling carbon from water in similar ways is the only mass way to do it, and you're right, it takes enormous energy for just a small amount of effect. Which without fusion or other non-emissions source, is a bit counter productive. Long ago someone visualized what we're trying to do with carbon capture as much like running the fossil fuel plant backwards. Anyone knowing entropy realizes the challenges and losses of that. Fossil fuel was so easy to utilize, lots of energy in those molecular bonds, and we could even use fossil fuel to pull up more fossil fuel. How do you reverse that?
In 2022, the National Ignition Facility in the USA was briefly able to generate more energy than required to run the reactor. This is an experimental reactor, and the yield is small, but it shows that fusion can work. Since then, reactors in China and France have been able to sustain fusion for a few minutes.
Yes, you need a massive amount of concentrated energy, and as far as I know only nuclear reactors can do that.