What kind of tech is being worked on that can protect us from the FX of climate change?

Oct 27, 2017
636
If you've given up hope that our leaders are planning on doing anything other than waiting to die before climate change starts personally affecting them, what are our options?

The global temperature is rising and from what I understand this could have effects that include more powerful natural disasters, droughts, and food shortage.

Where are we at with safe nuclear reactor tech? Desalinization plants? Wind and earthquake resistant building materials? What about A.I. powered risk assessment tech that can anticipate and prevent conflict between groups in communities? Indoor vertical farming? Any developments that you're excited about?
 

Viewt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
695
Chicago, IL
I remember reading something about The Netherlands creating something that removed CO2 from the air (but, like, more than trees already do), but it didn’t sound anywhere near ready to implement on a large scale. Is that still rolling on?
 
OP
OP
Lightning hand5
Oct 27, 2017
636
Tech isn't saving us. The answer is and always has been reducing consumption and rejecting fossil fuel energy.
We are running out of fossil fuels and we will need alternatives. We've already passed the threshold of reversibility and our leaders arent really addressing climate change with the level of urgency it demands. They're obviously just stalling so they can pass the problem on to someone else.

Now we have to figure out "how can we live with this?" As the ice sheets melt, the sea level will rise. How can we prevent islands from sinking? What kind of medicines and tech can we use to prevent people dying from heat stroke or severe sunburn? Etc.

We humans have survived so long because of our capacity to invent. We will have to invent our way out of this.
 

8byte

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,462
Kansas
The only thing changing anything is consumption. People prefer convenience over the planet, even here on this board. Even the environmental advocates. How many of them are riding bikes, turning off and unplugging their electronics when not in use? Not putting their computers or gaming consoles into "sleep" mode?

All of those little things add up to monumental energy costs. There are millions of tiny little steps necessary to curb this, and at this point, it's too late. Our creature comforts have taken over, and the best we can do is prolong the inevitable.

Nothing can save us from using FX as an abbreviation of effects.
*Chefs kiss
 

Airegin

Member
Dec 10, 2017
1,920
Stratospheric aerosol injection can cool the climate 1C° in less than a year. That would buy us a couple decades. The problem with this is once you stop it will go back up instantly.
 

tsampikos

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,512
lol

Technology to avoid the effects of mass extinction

Also nuclear reactors arent the cause for global warming or plastics in the ocean

Only viable solution to lessen these effects is for everyone to stop eating red meat and wild fish.

As long as wild animal populations survive we have a chance of an adapting ecosystem.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
4,698
Austria
Well, against the rising water at least, all we gotta do is bake some really good bread


...this is literally done to prevent climate change effects
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,587
Tech isn't saving us. The answer is and always has been reducing consumption and rejecting fossil fuel energy.
Absolutely 100% wrong. Changes in human behavior lag far behind progression in technology. The technology already exists to save us. The political willpower to apply it ubiquitously in a way that will mitigate the issue is the problem.

You can't get rid of power sources that enable us to automate our work. Our whole civilization is built on the foundation of powered automation.

You replace the base load power source which is currently supplied by fossil fuels with something else, preferably a technology that has a higher energy density and is sustainable, clean, cheap, ubiquitous, and safe. The only answer then is to utilize next gen nuclear (along with renewables where renewables are viable) in place of fossil-fuel-based electric power generation.

If molten salt reactors are used widely (as in replacing all fossil fuel power plants) for base load power, global warming will cease to be a threat. You would literally carve out 50%+ of the CO2 emmisions that currently exist (between electric power usage, heating fuels, and vehicular fuels...all which can be replaced with nuclear supplied electricity and heat).
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,587
came here to post this. rational discussion, and things you can do as an individual located within.
I agree it is a good thread.

But I want to emphasize to people that individual action has very little to do with solving this systemically created problem.

Replacing power infrastructure will save us. There, I solved climate change. The politics of the rich incumbents of power in the fossil fuels industry is the barrier, not technology.

Also, people's widespread complete misunderstanding of issues surrounding nuclear power serves as an enabler for the fossil fuel fatcats. People intentionally and unintentionally enable them by spreading their FUD.
 

Chairman Yang

Member
Oct 25, 2017
806
Meat substitutes could have a huge impact. Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger, and Omnipork all have a shot at reducing meat consumption if they can get their formulas right. I'm excited for their potential.

It's kind of strange that something as fickle as human food preferences could make such a difference, but there it is.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,312
Meat substitutes could have a huge impact. Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger, and Omnipork all have a shot at reducing meat consumption if they can get their formulas right. I'm excited for their potential.

It's kind of strange that something as fickle as human food preferences could make such a difference, but there it is.
How much of a difference are we talking? Could you point me in the direction of a reputable study you might be familiar with? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks
 

Commedieu

Member
Nov 11, 2017
5,507
There is plenty of tech to save the rich, and i don't mean 100k earners, from climate change. Plus, there might be a ton of water on the moon.

The rest of us are going to be stuck with food shortages, and livable areas on the map.
 

Copper

Member
Nov 13, 2017
482
Carbon capture becoming more efficent than photosynthesis seems extremely unlikely, especially if you consider that carbon capture need energy unlike trees that get their own, as well as batteries getting 10-20 times cheaper . Solar shading seems the most doable option to reduce the worst parts of global warming, combined with reduced consumption (probably from economical collapse due to the warming).

We needed to build more nuclear plants in the 90's, but Russia and oil companies propaganda ruined it. If every country had as much nuclear power as France, global warming wouldn't be even a concept.
 

Zophar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
857
Absolutely 100% wrong. Changes in human behavior lag far behind progression in technology. The technology already exists to save us. The political willpower to apply it ubiquitously in a way that will mitigate the issue is the problem.

You can't get rid of power sources that enable us to automate our work. Our whole civilization is built on the foundation of powered automation.

You replace the base load power source which is currently supplied by fossil fuels with something else, preferably a technology that has a higher energy density and is sustainable, clean, cheap, ubiquitous, and safe. The only answer then is to utilize next gen nuclear (along with renewables where renewables are viable) in place of fossil-fuel-based electric power generation.

If molten salt reactors are used widely (as in replacing all fossil fuel power plants) for base load power, global warming will cease to be a threat. You would literally carve out 50%+ of the CO2 emmisions that currently exist (between electric power usage, heating fuels, and vehicular fuels...all which can be replaced with nuclear supplied electricity and heat).
You need to go look at how much time and money it takes to build a nuclear reactor and then compare that against the timetable we have to work with in order to mitigate collapse.

Edit: One hint: most of the changes as a consequence of emissions are already locked in. Nuclear energy isn't taking the carbon already captured by the oceans out.
 
Last edited:

Neo C.

Member
Nov 9, 2017
511
The tech is there, actually there are many different ways to solve the problem, but most of them need the political push. That's why voting matters.
 

Zophar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
857
The tech is there, actually there are many different ways to solve the problem, but most of them need the political push. That's why voting matters.
Exactly what I meant when I said tech won't save us. We already have the answers and the technology to do it. The problem is that the solution needed to happen 20 years ago.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,155
We had nuclear for a couple of decades and we still won't adopt it on a large scale.

It is a socio-political problem.

Will "tech" be able to create a solution that, 1) everyone wants to adopt, 2) does not disrupt our current developed world lifestyle?

No, unlikely. It's consumption that's killing us.
 

emesve

Member
Oct 25, 2017
508
The oceans have already absorbed a huge amount of heat, the effects will be there, it's already set in motion. There's a lag time of 20-30 years to some of the effects, right? Don't know if I'm interpreting that right, but even if we magically reduce all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the blink of an eye, we'd still be seeing the effects continue and exacerbate for a good while.
 

Terminus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,526
Atmospheric aerosols are the best shot right now, but unless we decarbonize as well, we’ll be even more fucked if we ever stop seeding them. Extremely strained analogy, but it would be kind of like growing concerned that other people at the gym are smelling your BO and then wrapping yourself up in an airtight plastic sweatsuit to keep the stench in check. You’ve contained the problem, but it’s just going to keep getting worse underneath, and if you ever remove the fix it’s going to come roaring back even worse than it was before.

Still, buying time is better than dying.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,136
Even if the technology we have is enough to offset the effects (doubtful) the logistics of a move to renewable resources, plus the amount of resources, manpower, and money it would take in order to do so is so immense it's unlikely to ever, ever happen.

I'd give a 90% chance to the only technology that gets deployed on a large scale is aerosols in order to try to cool the planet.
 

Son Goku

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,574
RDJ is working on nano machines and AI to clean up everything in 10 years. Soon Disney will have enough money to vaporize all the greenhouse gasses hopefully
 

Chairman Yang

Member
Oct 25, 2017
806
How much of a difference are we talking? Could you point me in the direction of a reputable study you might be familiar with? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks
The Wikipedia page on the environmental impact of meat production is a good starting point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

Some studies you can get to through the links there.

The final benefit of meat substitutes will depend on how popular they get and what formula they end up using (eg. If Beyond Meat ends up mostly pea protein, like now, that'll be good, but not as good as, say, rice protein).