Direct carbon capture is necessary if we want to have a shot at reasonable survival. Maybe it’s not top priority in late 2023 when we have so many easier and faster things to do and advocate for, but in long- or even mid-term we’re cooked without it even if emissions dropped to 0 today. In an eco-war economy the entire scientific community would be forced to make it work. Look up “warming in the pipeline”, 6 degrees within 100 years would be the result of only the ghg we have emitted to date and we’re not going to stop, like, ever.

Everything except the last panel. It’s AND not OR.

don’t tell the Germans about bottom right

Sing it with me: “Nuclear power is not a solution!” 🎶🎵🎶

Besides that nuclear power is dangerous on so many levels…

Here is the math to consider:

• Nuclear only produces 3.6% of today’s power consumption
• 80% of today’s power consumption is still fossil based
• Recoverable Uranium would last for only ~200 at CURRENT PROD RATE! (Generous estimate)
• If we would want to replace fossil with nuclear, Uranium would only last for 9 YEARS.

I say it again: 9 YEARS ! After that time, you can’t produce any more power with your plants, leaving you with a huge problem. We need an energy system that will serve us good for the foreseeable future.

The median time for building a nuclear plant is 8 years. Getting all the planning and approval done can bring this timeline up to 20 years. Much to slow. We need solutions now!

Guys/Girls, stop reproducing the talking point of plant owners and capitalistic energy providers. Nuclear power is not a solution for the global scale problem of energy production.

SOURCES:

• https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/
• https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
• https://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-uranium-is-left-in-the-world-on-land-in-oceans-when-will-we-run-out/

Last one is based