[SigmundA]

That would be a heat pump and say it worked at a COP of 3 which is typical you would need 1 watt of power to move 3 watts of heat to somewhere, probably deep underground.

Nuclear power is what maybe 40% efficient so 60% of the nuclear energy is waste heat, so for every watt of energy 1.5 watts of heat released.

So now your only netting 1.5 watts for every watt. To make a difference the numbers would be staggering as the earth receives on the order 170,000 terawatts of solar energy.

Solar power rather than nuclear would make more sense but again the scale to make a difference is staggering.

I think more "realistic" would be using energy to split CO2 back into C and O2 and sequestering the carbon in the ground which is basically what plants do through photosynthesis. If we could make machines that do that more efficiently on a large scale from solar power we might make a difference.

[_8j50]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Would the logistics still be the same if you're talking about cooling spcific subsets of the polar regions? For example, the "rim" of the arctic?

Perhaps the excess heat from nuclear can be used to clean up CO2, I remember reading a few articles that suggest CO2 cleaning plants are actually practical