3 ms·

Maybe there's a coherent train of thought in here. But the random ALL CAPS and unnecessary politicization ("let me break it down for you liberals") just makes y

• teslaberry 10y ago
  you're right, i need to work on my writing. carbon capture is pointlessly destructive. there is little to no technology 'silver lining' to investing in carbon capture research that is not already being achieved through materials research in the adsorption applications field . this wastefullness is often disguised by many ridiculous claims just as was the synfeuls money spent in the 1970's. billions of dollars deliberately thrown into the toilet that could have been invested in something that was arguably useful instead of non-arguably useless. coal is dying and dead. and carbon capture will not cleanse the public relations, nor the actual competitiveness of goal on any market based, or environmentally based set of yardsticks. i'm not anti coal. i'm actually pro coal. solid fuels simply are not competitive with liquid, let alone gasseaous fuels. the only long term hope for coal is that synthetic gas (mosly CO) from coal can be integrated into a liqids or gasseous set of feuls burned in a combined heat recycling generation turbine. whatever fraction of the coal that can be gassified cheaply is the underlying basis for monetizing ANY profit to be made out of coal, on a competitive market financial basis with natural gas, and---on a competitive environmental basis ( though fracked gas in inherently cleaner than ANY coal on both an atmospheric and a surface impact basis) carbon capture is about as foolish an investment as is any research on hazing the atmosphere with sulfur particles. hell, there is research saying coal emissions -==being high in sulfur particles---actually lower the global temperature and are thus 'good'. from the environmental perspective, these are all fools arguments. you don't invest in technologies to create the perfect mop for cleaning up mud on a single specific surface where the mud is spewing out of . you either stop the mud from coming out, or you invest in cleaning up ALL the mud ---yes even environmentalists admit that particulate carbon, sulfur and n0x emissions are pollution that is significant , not in just a tiny part of the mud (co2). on an economic basis (where c02 emissions are completely and utterly benign on a market basis and have ZERO bearing on the matter) ------------there is absolutely zero value to industrial feed-stock c02 that is not produced on a competitive basis. it is literally just being dumped onto the market and its costs are born by whoever subsidizes its profitless production. and thus, talking about creating nanotubes of carbon is madness. the cost of carbon nanotube production could come down by 5 orders of magnitude and there still would be no reason to couple the idea of carbon capture with creating industrial carbon feedstocks for nanotube production because there's plenty of carbon feedstocks and they are 10,000 times cheaper than anything you may ever get out of a factory smokestack. maybe just read this. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide/2-co2-market https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating... the global demand for industrial c02 gas is not that big. and the theoretical surplus of supply is SO massive you have no clue. not in 200 years will we see a 'shortage' in industrial supply gas that will make a dent in MARKET prices. what central planners love to do in these situations is just ramp up the price with a massive tax , take money from the industry, and see what chaos ensues when you impose artificial scarcity.......