Climate Change

[Salodin]

The point is to stop digging up as much carbon as we are now. Reusing the carbon up here is much preferred. Don't forget we use oil for a lot more than just gas and turbines.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Forte]

If this fixes the problem I'm all for it. I'm just not convinced this fixes the problem, otherwise I feel like we'd already be doing it.

[6souls]

[Jaybar]

If this fixes the problem I'm all for it. I'm just not convinced this fixes the problem, otherwise I feel like we'd already be doing it.

It won't fix the problem, but it will help relieve the strain of net carbon emissions while we find avenues for removing airborne CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

[Forte]

It won't fix the problem, but it will help relieve the strain of net carbon emissions while we find avenues for removing airborne CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

Your statement confuses the fuck out of me. I thought you guys were saying we already had ways of removing airborne CO2. I thought that's literally what you all have been touting.

Do we have it or don't we?

[Jaybar]

Your statement confuses the fuck out of me. I thought you guys were saying we already had ways of removing airborne CO2. I thought that's literally what you all have been touting.

Do we have it or don't we?

It's called nature.

[Jaybar]

But nature doesn't take out methane, so gotta figure that one out on our own, that's all I'm saying.

[Forte]

It's called nature.

The point is source the C02 from the air, yes.

Please explain why these two statements don't contradict each other.

Either we have a way of "sourcing CO2 from the air", or we do not.

[Cantih]

You're arguing past each other from unrelative positions and it's escalating.

Restart the conversation from base assumptions, get back on the same page.

[Jaybar]

Yea I can't make it any clearer, there's a major divide in this argument which unless it is cleared up we will get nowhere. I've literally gone over every post since Forte's OP and have no idea what he is arguing about anymore.

[6souls]

Yea I can't make it any clearer, there's a major divide in this argument which unless it is cleared up we will get nowhere. I've literally gone over every post since Forte's OP and have no idea what he is arguing about anymore.

Sounds like BRP.

[archibaldcrane]

Please explain why these two statements don't contradict each other.

Either we have a way of "sourcing CO2 from the air", or we do not.

Direct air capture of C02 is a technology that exists but is in its infancy.

https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture

There are currently 19 direct air capture (DAC) plants operating worldwide, capturing more than 0.01 Mt CO2/year, and a 1Mt CO2/year capture plant is in advanced development in the United States. The latest plant to come online, in September 2021, is capturing 4 kt CO2/year for storage in basalt formations in Iceland. In the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, DAC is scaled up to capture more than 85 Mt CO2/year by 2030 and ~980 Mt CO2/year by 2050. This level of deployment will require several more large-scale demonstrations to refine the technology and reduce capture costs.

Also, obviously, plants do it (but release most of the carbon back into the air in the process of decomposition after dying)

[Andalusian girls]

assholes

[Spicyryan]

Your statement confuses the fuck out of me. I thought you guys were saying we already had ways of removing airborne CO2. I thought that's literally what you all have been touting.

Do we have it or don't we?

Can even capture CO2 and convert it to fuel any car's combustion engine can use for emissionless driving. The method of doing so takes a lot of power. Which generates CO2, obviously.

[Jaybar]

assholes

Underrated cause of greenhouse gas emissions.

[kuronosan]

Has anyone confirmed Tyche is okay down there in KY? Haven't seen him post in a while.

[synistar]

He posted in the Congress thread so I think he's good.

[6souls]

Has anyone confirmed Tyche is okay down there in KY? Haven't seen him post in a while.

Is he even in the low lands?

[Forte]

This is, and continues to be, the caveat with all this cool tech. As far as I am aware, no one is even close to being able to do this, otherwise we'd be doing it as hard as we possibly can. So while this fuel is cool and all, it does fuck nothing without the carbon capture which still doesn't exist and may not even be possible.

So other than my statement about it not existing or not being possible, this statement is correct. The tech exists, but either consumes way too much power, or is too new to be proven yet. "As far as I am aware, no one is even close to being able to do this on a large enough scale for such fuel production to matter".

[archibaldcrane]

Seems pretty good

https://twitter.com/JesseJenkins/sta...__CzfVkFA&s=19