4 ms·
But there is no advantage here to produce FUD. In fact it acknowledges the primary problems of fossil fuels, not deny them. They are not seeking FDA approval on
by SubiculumCode 8y ago
But there is no advantage here to produce FUD. In fact it acknowledges the primary problems of fossil fuels, not deny them. They are not seeking FDA approval on a drug, or trying to show that CO2 makes us smarter and healthier. I won't use more gas now because of this article. However, if they can do it (and they have for several years in a test), then we can slow the rate of new carbon, while the growth of solar continues to grow, I think it is a potential win for us, and for a company able to do it.
- igor47 8y agoYou will absolutely use more gas because of this article. Just the headline out there will have an effect (since people tend to remember mostly the headlines). When your local enviro-hippie comes and starts asking you to fly less, drive less, buy local, save energy, etc... -- you'll have just slightly less incentive to do that. "What's the big deal", you'll say. "We can just suck the CO2 out of the air." I think this is exactly the effect that fossil fuel companies hope the FUD will produce.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoIt ignores the energy cost to turn the damn CO2 into fuel. If we had a cost effective way to BOTH capture CO2 AND turn it into fuel, then we wouldn't be drilling for fuel.. It ignores the atmospheric CO2 that is no longer abosrbed by the greenhouse plants by feeding them this CO2: in this sense its $100 dollar per tonne CO2 more expensive than letting the greenhouse plants extract it themselves! It's just a good news show, now nature.com is doing it too!