And that point will be reached when all emissions are accounted for. There's no good reason why that can't be the case, heat aside. And even heat emissions should be managed.
Please inform me of how you intent to break several laws of physics. It is impossible to make a power station without having a heat sink and dumping the heat somewhere.
Please inform me if you intend to study English. Your intent is unclear.
I never said it must be eliminated, I said it must be managed. It is not generally a significant concern in any case, so far as we know. But there's no reason to simply ignore it.
Using solar power is a nifty way to have the heating go on elsewhere, yet still "somewhere". Ye olde solar power satellite concept rears its head again.
If you are thinking about carbon capture- don't.
If you are thinking about issuing me any more ignorant imperatives- blow them our your arse.
Nobody has proved it on a large scale. The largest projects I have heard of divert a tiny (~1-5) percentage of the exhaust gas from a test (small) power station.
Hello, the USDoE is calling you from the 1980s. You are woefully underinformed at best.
Likewise, capturing ALL the emissions would require more energy than the power station creates!
I'm happy if all the emissions are simply accounted for. For example, via carbon fixing schemes, like tree planting.
Carbon capture carries a huge parasitic loss, an inefficiency which if applied on a large scale would wastefully use up even more fossil fuels.
If you read the report I linked above, which has been around for quite some time now and cited all over teh interwebs and read by every person genuinely interested in this sort of thing and not just in it for the trollz, you will see that it actually helps produce fossil fuel substitutes. But I understand that you simply think you know what's best for me, and would like me to get on board.
In summary, get a dictionary and blow me.