- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,872
- Reaction score
- 22,194
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Drilling for oil is a free lunch.
No it's not, we just didn't pay for it.
Drilling for oil is a free lunch.
No, they really aren't. Carbon scrubbers require an input of energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere; they are not a source of energy. They cannot violate the law of energy conservation. While they may indeed be useful for producing synthetic fuel from CO2 for use in e.g. aircraft and as an energy store, they are not, in themselves, a solution for global warming.
While they may indeed be useful for producing synthetic fuel from CO2 for use in e.g. aircraft and as an energy store,
While they may indeed be useful for producing synthetic fuel from CO2 for use in e.g. aircraft and as an energy store, they are not, in themselves, a solution for global warming.
Theoretically.
Actually... not really even theoretically, unless you have a different definition of ‘game changer’ than everyone else.
The storage of energy as hydrocarbon fuels is the solution the alternatives need.To create 1 gallon of gasoline from CO2, you need to input the energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline and then some. While there will certainly be some niche applications for synthetic fuels, and they can act as a store of energy, they do not replace the need for a massive expansion in renewable energy generation.
Yes, but Pearl Harbor happened decades ago, and the Berlin Wall came down in the last century as well.
Not really. The technology has been tested for years, and scientists agree that the technology works. The CO2 can be scrubbed right now for about $250/ton. When I say the problem is solved, I'm speaking technologically. The only thing left is the commitment, which given the opportunity for investment to then resell the fuel, really doesn't seem like it should be much of a problem. Plants are currently being built, which is why they say by 2021 the costs should be down to $100/ton. What else needs to be discovered technologically?
What does that have to do with milking the tax payer for a made up crisis?
You seem to be arguing against something I never argued for. You actually admit I am right:
You then say this:
Except that they are a solution for global warming. We can scrub Carbon out of the air without increasing our usage. We can put the fuel in storage. This takes the Carbon out of the atmosphere, which is what is creating a stronger greenhouse effect warming the planet. In fact, we don't even need to turn the Carbon into fuel. We could simply put the Carbon in the ground if we wanted. You are wrong, and you need to admit you are wrong to restore the little bit of credibility you had before making these falsehood claims. We simply will not pollute the air as much with the scrubbers as we will take out of the atmosphere with them. Nice try, kid. Keep fearmongering, as that is clearly all you know how to do.
I am neither lying nor fear mongering. I am simply pointing out that these claims are not compatible with the law of conservation of energy. Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere requires energy. Where do you suppose this energy is going to come from?
Where does the energy come from to run a nuclear power plant?
It comes from the fission of uranium atoms, which releases energy. Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere requires energy.
Where does the energy come from to run a nuclear power plant?
Do carbon and hydrogen release energy? The energy scrubbers use are essentially for fans.
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.
According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
I think I was responding to your comment about a scam intended to weaken America. Do you think that, say, the Paris agreement was a scam to weaken America. We might as well give up now, as every other country in the world is against us.
Boiled down the link says:
Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into GasolineJust think, in a few years the process could be miniatureized just like
A Harvard professor says his company should be able to suck carbon
dioxide out of the atmosphere, at industrial scales, by 2021.
...people will soon be able to produce gasoline and jet fuel from
little more than limestone, hydrogen, and air. ...the new technique
is noteworthy because it promises to remove carbon dioxide cheaply.
...it would cost between $1 and $2.50 to remove the carbon dioxide
released by burning a gallon of gasoline in a modern car....
outside air is sucked into the factory’s “contactors” and exposed
to an alkaline liquid. ...“CO2 is a weak acid, so it wants to be
in the base,” ...the now-watery liquid (containing carbon dioxide)
...undergoes a series of chemical reactions to separate the base
from the acid. ...the carbon dioxide is combined with hydrogen and
converted into liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
...
If you were to burn Carbon Engineering’s gas in your car, you would
release carbon-dioxide pollution out of your tailpipe and into Earth’s
atmosphere. But as this carbon dioxide came from the air in the first
place, these emissions would not introduce any new CO2 to the
atmosphere. Nor would any new oil have to be mined to power your car.
what was done with computers, and all you have to do is have one of
these units placed between your car's tail pipe and the gas tank and
you could drive down the road for nothing.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
The key B.S. statement from the link is:
...the carbon dioxide is combined with hydrogen and convertedIn my opinion, CO2 sequestration is entirely without merit. The
into liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
people who push this stuff have no concept of physics, chemistry,
econonomics, or arithmetic. They seem to believe in magic, and
perpetual motion machines.
Only when they fuse in a star.
You need a supernova to get the carbon to do that.
What's the right carbon level?
No, it's that people like you don't understand what people like me are saying. I'm not saying that there will be no Carbon pollution from this fuel. I'm saying that we are already burning that fuel. It takes time to build up. We can scrub it out of the atmosphere, yes re-burn and re-pollute, but that's okay as some CO2 pollution is okay. It's when it builds up over time in the atmosphere that it becomes a problem. Furthermore, the fuel part of this isn't even the important part, the scrubbing is. But the people who claim to care about the environment never want to admit that things aren't as bad as they fearmongered for a long time. We were supposed to be dead many times over, we were told there would be no solution, and now here is a perfectly good solution that solves global warming almost entirely basically by itself for relatively cheap. The strawman arguments and mockery that comes from that misinterpretation is astounding. According to your argument here, these Harvard-educated Scientists "have no concept of physics".
Thanks for putting in bold what I said:
In my opinion, CO2 sequestration is entirely without merit. The
people who push this stuff have no concept of physics, chemistry,
economics or arithmetic. They seem to believe in magic, and
perpetual motion machines.
Some more of my opinion: Carbon Dioxide is NOT a problem. You seem
to be buying into the notion that it is. As time goes by, it is becoming more
and more apparent that the Global Warming catastrophe that has been
predicted really isn't about to happen. Outrageous headlines in the so-
called mainstream media aren't convincing. Hottest month/year ever
claims when it's only the warmest and only after "Climate Scientists" have
obviously and in broad daylight goosed the numbers to achieve a mere
fraction of a degree doesn't make me want to take it seriously.
I'd be more willing to accept Climate Science:
If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer preview process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.
Claims that increased CO2 causes less nutritious food is B.S.
Sea level isn't on track to go up a meter or more by 2100.
Hurricanes are about the same as they have always been.
Forest fires are way less frequent than a century ago.
Methane really isn't 86 times more powerful than CO2.
The frequency of extreme tornadoes has declined.
Ocean acidification is another load of B.S.
Antarctica and Greenland aren't melting.
The polar bears aren't going extinct.
The coral reefs aren't in danger.
Droughts are less frequent.
Precipitation is up.
Thanks for putting in bold what I said:
In my opinion, CO2 sequestration is entirely without merit. The
people who push this stuff have no concept of physics, chemistry,
economics or arithmetic. They seem to believe in magic, and
perpetual motion machines.
Some more of my opinion: Carbon Dioxide is NOT a problem. You seem
to be buying into the notion that it is. As time goes by, it is becoming more
and more apparent that the Global Warming catastrophe that has been
predicted really isn't about to happen. Outrageous headlines in the so-
called mainstream media aren't convincing. Hottest month/year ever
claims when it's only the warmest and only after "Climate Scientists" have
obviously and in broad daylight goosed the numbers to achieve a mere
fraction of a degree doesn't make me want to take it seriously.
I'd be more willing to accept Climate Science:
If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer preview process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.
Claims that increased CO2 causes less nutritious food is B.S.
Sea level isn't on track to go up a meter or more by 2100.
Hurricanes are about the same as they have always been.
Forest fires are way less frequent than a century ago.
Methane really isn't 86 times more powerful than CO2.
The frequency of extreme tornadoes has declined.
Ocean acidification is another load of B.S.
Antarctica and Greenland aren't melting.
The polar bears aren't going extinct.
The coral reefs aren't in danger.
Droughts are less frequent.
Precipitation is up.
I didn't ask about fusing them together. I asked if these two elements contain energy. Both Carbon and Hydrogen are used as fuel sources so the correct answer is yes, they both produce energy.