[antupis]

Carbon capture + burning is probably best especially cold places which needs district heating. Eg Norway has now pilot ongoing https://bellona.org/news/ccs/2022-03-oslo-leading-by-example...

[seoaeu]

What? Renewable energy from wind or solar is vastly easier than burning fossil fuel and then trying to get the resulting CO2 back out of the air

[ThunderSizzle]

Vegetation tends to do pretty well at handling CO2.

Also, destroying the landscape to "save the climate" still ends with destroying the environment. Wind and solar aren't energy dense enough to justify the damage they cause.

[seoaeu]

Literally none of what you said is true

[ThunderSizzle]

How much land needs to be destroyed to make solar farms and wind farms big enough to generate the vast majority of power?

What species already inhabits that land or space that will be re-purposed?

What happens to old solar panels and wind turbines after they reach their end of life?

What happens to the places that supply the raw materials for solar panels?

How many batteries are needed to make up for solar and wind variance? What is required to make those batteries? How much land do they require?

Will batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines all continue to work at the same level as other power sources in times of extreme weather?

[msh]

Solar won't work in Norway in the winter. Wind is too intermittent. So you need an alternative. I don't know if burning stuff and capturing CO2 is a good alternative.

[seoaeu]

The problem with carbon capture is that (a) it takes a lot of energy and (b) is only marginally ahead of fusion on being ready for widespread deployment. So compared to that basically anything is a better alternative.

In the case of Norway, apparently they produce ~90% of their electricity from hydro. Good strategy if there’s lots of spots in your country for hydro electric dams, pretty difficult to replicate if not.