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.

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