4 ms·

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 ma

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.
      - thinkcontext 7y ago
        > I have no idea how you got it in your head that i'm advocating for DAC I did not say you advocated for DAC. I said I was willing to listen to you explain why you thought DAC was better than point source capture. You said point source capture was "madness" while on the other hand saying DAC research was something you'd be willing to fund. I didn't (and still don't) understand why you think that. Don't think I twisted anything. You were at angry gibberish in your first reply to me, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and merely asked you to explain your position. Obviously, that was a mistake.
        cagenut 7y ago
        No I will not take your "please explain to me the difference between a positive and negative number" question in good faith. You are either trolling on purpose, or being so intellectually lazy that you're trolling in practice.
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.

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.
    - thinkcontext 7y ago
      > I have no idea how you got it in your head that i'm advocating for DAC I did not say you advocated for DAC. I said I was willing to listen to you explain why you thought DAC was better than point source capture. You said point source capture was "madness" while on the other hand saying DAC research was something you'd be willing to fund. I didn't (and still don't) understand why you think that. Don't think I twisted anything. You were at angry gibberish in your first reply to me, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and merely asked you to explain your position. Obviously, that was a mistake.
      - cagenut 7y ago
        No I will not take your "please explain to me the difference between a positive and negative number" question in good faith. You are either trolling on purpose, or being so intellectually lazy that you're trolling in practice.

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.