Carbon capture? Nuc plants? Not gonna help?

Swedish engineers did some calculating on whether it would work to use two of the more popular approaches to curtailing global warming. They looked at carbon capture (or sequestration) and more nuclear power plants. Capturing carbon is pointless they say. As for nuclear: it's a heat disaster, producing three times as much heat emission energy as it does electricity. The core of the Swedish argument: most of the heat produced by industrialization and hyuman activities is not even inthe atmosphere. It's trapped in the ground, the oceans, the melting ice caops and glaciers. They maintain the problem is NET HEAT EMISSIONS. Thus the researchers say use of solar, tidal and wind--which produce little heat emission--is the direction we must use to combat global warming. [poll id="155"]