5 ms·

Airplanes are not going to stop flying. We can try raising the price to make them fly less than they would otherwise but there will still be a need to lower th

Airplanes are not going to stop flying. We can try raising the price to make them fly less than they would otherwise but there will still be a need to lower the carbon footprint of flight. Synthesizing fuel from captured CO2 seems like a much better pathway than batteries. Also, I don't think its valid to compare it to thorium or fusion. We can make synthetic fuel from captured CO2 today whereas those are science projects. Synthetic fuel isn't cost effective given economic and political realities but its likely this will occur within the next 10 years in at least some places. Minor point, people seem to marry DAC with synthesizing fuel, probably because Carbon Engineering has gotten a lot of press. Fuel can be synthesized from CO2 from any source. It is my understanding that DAC is currently more expensive than capturing from a point source, like a natural gas power plant. This is due to CO2 being such a small percentage of the atmosphere vs 10%+ from plant flue gases. So, while DAC is more expensive and there are still substantial point sources of CO2, fuel made from DAC will be more expensive from point source capture.

cagenut 7y ago
point source capturing co2 from burning fossil fuels and then turning it into more liquid fuels that you then burn again is madness. you get that right? it makes less sense than simply saying "fuck it" and pumping the same amount of fossil fuel up. at least then you don't have to pay the energy cost of the transitions. this kind of high-anxiety circular reasoning is hopefully the 'bargaining' phase before you move onto acceptance.
- thinkcontext 7y ago
  I don't get that because its not true. In both scenarios after the energy consuming activities are done the same amount of CO2 is in the air (ignoring operational efficiency). One just costs more than the other because a more difficult path of capturing the CO2 is chosen.
  - cagenut 7y ago
    oh well if we just ignore efficiency and cost! you are living in a world of spherical cows, not in the reality of the climate emergency. please understand that as the body counts rise this level of "technically correct" pedantry will be seen for the rather gross complicity it is.
    - thinkcontext 7y ago
      The operational efficiency of both is probably within 10% of each other, so not that significant compared to the big picture of what we are discussing. My guess is that DAC actually fares worse because you have to run an enormous bank of fans to suck in all that air which is why it costs more. As for cost, I'm not ignoring it, it was my point. Fuel from one pathway costs more from another pathway. High cost is a barrier to taking a solution out of the lab and actually putting it into action to causing less CO2 to be emitted. If 2 fuel pathways have the same carbon footprint but one costs less than the other why would you choose the one that costs more? I'm willing to listen if you would like to explain why you think DAC is better but so far you haven't done that, you've just been insulting which I don't get.
      - cagenut 7y ago
        I have no idea how you got it in your head that i'm advocating for DAC. I not only did not do that, I specifically did the opposite by saying I have "0%" hope for it. The fact that you've twisted this around now into trying to get me to defend it is an example of why i'm being insulting to you. Your behavior is bad, and I hope you feel bad about it. Why should I treat you with respect when you're ignoring the context of the conversation in order to correct internet strangers with your tangential distraction of a point? What makes you feel entitled to other people being graciously receptive to that? The actual topic at hand here is the GHG footprint of air travel (see topic, OP). My comment was about the time constraint provided by the IPCC that people fail to include in their analysis. Here you are 5 replies deep twisting my arguments into their opposite while failing to even address, let alone refute or propose your own alternative for the central point. On a micro level your behavior is just garden variety piss poor social skills (can't say i'm the best either!). On a macro (and specific to this topic, climate change) level your behavior is the sand in the gears that keeps any of the rest of us from discussing this challenge in good faith and reaching rational conclusions. You are poisoning the well. You are pissing in the pool. Please stop.
- Majromax 7y ago
  > point source capturing co2 from burning fossil fuels and then turning it into more liquid fuels that you then burn again is madness. you get that right? Only if you equally value energy at the time of burning and the time of conversion. Imagine a natural gas peaker plant that captures CO2 during its typical operation, but it converts that CO2 back into a synthetic fuel during periods of energy surplus (when renewables provide more than 100% of the demand). The synthetic fuel is then essentially a battery, which just happens to be energy-dense. There also reasonable ways of acquiring a "green" CO2 stream that does not involve fossil fuels; non-liquid biofuels (ex, cellulose or charcoal) would work here.

cagenut 7y ago

point source capturing co2 from burning fossil fuels and then turning it into more liquid fuels that you then burn again is madness. you get that right? it makes less sense than simply saying "fuck it" and pumping the same amount of fossil fuel up. at least then you don't have to pay the energy cost of the transitions. this kind of high-anxiety circular reasoning is hopefully the 'bargaining' phase before you move onto acceptance.

thinkcontext 7y ago
I don't get that because its not true. In both scenarios after the energy consuming activities are done the same amount of CO2 is in the air (ignoring operational efficiency). One just costs more than the other because a more difficult path of capturing the CO2 is chosen.
- cagenut 7y ago
  oh well if we just ignore efficiency and cost! you are living in a world of spherical cows, not in the reality of the climate emergency. please understand that as the body counts rise this level of "technically correct" pedantry will be seen for the rather gross complicity it is.
  - thinkcontext 7y ago
    The operational efficiency of both is probably within 10% of each other, so not that significant compared to the big picture of what we are discussing. My guess is that DAC actually fares worse because you have to run an enormous bank of fans to suck in all that air which is why it costs more. As for cost, I'm not ignoring it, it was my point. Fuel from one pathway costs more from another pathway. High cost is a barrier to taking a solution out of the lab and actually putting it into action to causing less CO2 to be emitted. If 2 fuel pathways have the same carbon footprint but one costs less than the other why would you choose the one that costs more? I'm willing to listen if you would like to explain why you think DAC is better but so far you haven't done that, you've just been insulting which I don't get.
    - cagenut 7y ago
      I have no idea how you got it in your head that i'm advocating for DAC. I not only did not do that, I specifically did the opposite by saying I have "0%" hope for it. The fact that you've twisted this around now into trying to get me to defend it is an example of why i'm being insulting to you. Your behavior is bad, and I hope you feel bad about it. Why should I treat you with respect when you're ignoring the context of the conversation in order to correct internet strangers with your tangential distraction of a point? What makes you feel entitled to other people being graciously receptive to that? The actual topic at hand here is the GHG footprint of air travel (see topic, OP). My comment was about the time constraint provided by the IPCC that people fail to include in their analysis. Here you are 5 replies deep twisting my arguments into their opposite while failing to even address, let alone refute or propose your own alternative for the central point. On a micro level your behavior is just garden variety piss poor social skills (can't say i'm the best either!). On a macro (and specific to this topic, climate change) level your behavior is the sand in the gears that keeps any of the rest of us from discussing this challenge in good faith and reaching rational conclusions. You are poisoning the well. You are pissing in the pool. Please stop.
Majromax 7y ago
> point source capturing co2 from burning fossil fuels and then turning it into more liquid fuels that you then burn again is madness. you get that right? Only if you equally value energy at the time of burning and the time of conversion. Imagine a natural gas peaker plant that captures CO2 during its typical operation, but it converts that CO2 back into a synthetic fuel during periods of energy surplus (when renewables provide more than 100% of the demand). The synthetic fuel is then essentially a battery, which just happens to be energy-dense. There also reasonable ways of acquiring a "green" CO2 stream that does not involve fossil fuels; non-liquid biofuels (ex, cellulose or charcoal) would work here.