Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "Fusion Energy Is Coming. No, Really. | Answers With Joe" video.

  1. Any hydroxide will absorb CO2, the problem is getting it back out of it and putting it somewhere.
    3
  2. SBVCP Properly managed herds actually increase carbon sequestration in soil.
    3
  3. freemind No, that's a right-wing mythical misunderstanding that uneducated MORONS are passing around. ALL previous ice ages came and went because the Milankovich Cycle of the earth's orbit caused a change in received solar energy. But the temp changes caused absorption or release of CO2 from the oceans. THEN the change in CO2 multiplied the temp change by a factor of five or MORE!! THAT is what caused the ice ages and interglacials. THAT is why it LOOKS like CO2 change always FOLLOWS warming or cooling. But it IS the change in CO2 that CAUSES the massive heating or cooling!! But NOW, Milankovich says we SHOULD BE COOLING, but we are WARMING!! With burning fossil fuels we have BYPASSED Milankovch and released ENORMOUS amounts of CO2, FAR MORE than the interglacials and warming the earth FASTER than ANY previous events!! So NO, you're merely uneducated, ignorant, and WRONG!!
    3
  4. Michael Foye NO! How much heat you keep is what causes warming, and that is totally controlled by CO2.
    3
  5. frisianmouve You're totally utterly ridiculously wrong. And you're so stupid you don't even know it. Get an education!!
    2
  6. lies damnlies NO!! Solar and wind are now less than half the cost of nuclear energy, when ALL costs get considered. Nuclear in the USA is over 14 cents per kW-hr, but wind in Texas is only 3.7 cents per kW-hr and PV is only 5 cents. And building the number of reactors needed and getting them online would take three decades, solar and wind takes less than a decade because they are mass manufactured, dispersed, and need no regulation. You can get three TIMES the energy supply for the money with wind and solar.
    2
  7. Samuel Zelter Totally fraudulent and well debunked. Do a little research on costs and limitations.
    2
  8. Alderick van Klaveren If we go all wind, solar, tidal and wave and geothermal we save the world and don't have to do any of that, and at a third the cost. If we stop burning carbon, the world will absorb it in rocks and plants in a century.
    2
  9. frisianmouve Totally erroneous, stop guessing and research it.
    2
  10. Well, no, there is a little waste, and it is short lived.
    2
  11. freemind NO, he's right, it is a phony experiment and worthless.
    2
  12. Carl Vandenberg I'm a physicist. Your assertion is totally erroneous and stupid. It's right-wing mythology.
    2
  13. Titanosaurus Your grasp of thermodynamics needs lots of work. But in a billion years the oceans will have boiled away, as the sun's luminosity increases.
    2
  14. No, go get and education for fuck's sake!!
    1
  15. If we spent the money we dumped into fusion so far, we could have had a world powered completely by wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave, and had homes that heated themselves passively and saved summer heat for winter. The estimated costs are less than half what we spent on fusion. And in doing so we would have saved the world from climate change and global warming. If we wait and count on fusion and it doesn't hurry the fuck up and quick rescue us, then we're all fucked!!
    1