3 ms·

Wow. Three non sequiturs in three sentences. There are sites that suggest any number of things. Unspecified "sites" have little bearing on the actual facts. I

Wow. Three non sequiturs in three sentences. There are sites that suggest any number of things. Unspecified "sites" have little bearing on the actual facts. I'm not sure that Milankovitch Cycles imply the dumping of CO2. > Hopefully we can find a way to turn that into fuel. This is the silliest and most thermodynamically backward thing I've read in a year. CO2 is burnt carbon. It's burnt. Burnt stuff ain't fuel; it's burnt.

futureastronaut 7y ago
Are you familiar with photosynthesis?
- masterjack 7y ago
  Yes but photosynthesis doesn’t generate energy but the opposite: it takes in energy from the sun in order to reverse the reaction
  - giarc 7y ago
    It does generate energy, stored in the form of carbohydrates.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      It stores the energy it got from other sources, it doesn't generate it itself.
  - futureastronaut 7y ago
    That's a good point, the solar energy is not created. My point is that CO2 can be removed while creating useful energy (in this case, converting a transient source to a durable one). I thought parent was being overly dramatic, even simplistic, in making CO2 sound like some unusable waste product ("burnt carbon. It's burnt. Burnt stuff ain't fuel; it's burnt.").
    - function_seven 7y ago
      > My point is that CO2 can be removed while creating useful energy You have to pick one. CO2 removal or creating energy. If you remove it, it must remain sequestered. If you create fuel from it, the CO2 will not have been removed. I'm not against the idea of sourcing fuels from atmospheric CO2. It's a good way to get energy-dense fuel without adding new carbon to the atmosphere (assuming a carbon-free source of energy is used to synthesize the fuel). But that process won't remove CO2; it'll just not add more.
      - hsbaut76 7y ago
        Alge based fuels do exactly this. The problem isn't technology, the technology for genetically modifying alge or bacteria to consume CO2 and produce oil has been around for quite some time. The problem is our powerstructures and our economic investments. It takes tremendous energy to move such a massive Goliath of a ship. Our economy which brought us prosperity simply cannot move quickly enough to prevent our demise. Ironic and perhaps poetic really
LinuxBender 7y ago
Co2 into fuel [1] [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harva...
- rob74 7y ago
  So we are turning the CO2 back into (expensive) fuel, which can be burnt again and the CO2 released? But you're in luck, thanks to global warming the thawing permafrost and the warming oceans will release large quantities of methane (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions), which is an excellent fuel, and a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it would actually be good for the climate. Good luck with capturing it, however...
wnevets 7y ago
He's a critical free thinker, so it's ok.

futureastronaut 7y ago

Are you familiar with photosynthesis?

masterjack 7y ago
Yes but photosynthesis doesn’t generate energy but the opposite: it takes in energy from the sun in order to reverse the reaction
- giarc 7y ago
  It does generate energy, stored in the form of carbohydrates.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    It stores the energy it got from other sources, it doesn't generate it itself.
- futureastronaut 7y ago
  That's a good point, the solar energy is not created. My point is that CO2 can be removed while creating useful energy (in this case, converting a transient source to a durable one). I thought parent was being overly dramatic, even simplistic, in making CO2 sound like some unusable waste product ("burnt carbon. It's burnt. Burnt stuff ain't fuel; it's burnt.").
  - function_seven 7y ago
    > My point is that CO2 can be removed while creating useful energy You have to pick one. CO2 removal or creating energy. If you remove it, it must remain sequestered. If you create fuel from it, the CO2 will not have been removed. I'm not against the idea of sourcing fuels from atmospheric CO2. It's a good way to get energy-dense fuel without adding new carbon to the atmosphere (assuming a carbon-free source of energy is used to synthesize the fuel). But that process won't remove CO2; it'll just not add more.
    - hsbaut76 7y ago
      Alge based fuels do exactly this. The problem isn't technology, the technology for genetically modifying alge or bacteria to consume CO2 and produce oil has been around for quite some time. The problem is our powerstructures and our economic investments. It takes tremendous energy to move such a massive Goliath of a ship. Our economy which brought us prosperity simply cannot move quickly enough to prevent our demise. Ironic and perhaps poetic really

LinuxBender 7y ago

Co2 into fuel [1] [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harva...

rob74 7y ago
So we are turning the CO2 back into (expensive) fuel, which can be burnt again and the CO2 released? But you're in luck, thanks to global warming the thawing permafrost and the warming oceans will release large quantities of methane (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions), which is an excellent fuel, and a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it would actually be good for the climate. Good luck with capturing it, however...

wnevets 7y ago

He's a critical free thinker, so it's ok.