4 ms·
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 gues
by 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 agoI 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 agoNo 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.
- thinkcontext 7y agoOh I see, thanks for clarifying what you were reacting to. We're not disagreeing, you just misunderstood what I was saying. Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. If you capture 1MT of CO2 and then use it to make aviation fuel, then burn that fuel, 1MT of CO2 will have been emitted (as opposed to 2MT if you don't capture and synthesize fuel). This is true whether you capture the CO2 using DAC or if you capture it from the gas plant's flue gases. That's why I said: > In both scenarios after the energy consuming activities are done the same amount of CO2 is in the air So, my point was if you wind up with the same amount of CO2 in the air, might as well use the cheaper method to capture the CO2 so that the aviation fuel is cheaper so that it starts getting used sooner. See, no trolling. I still don't get why you thought I was, it really seems like you have rage issues.
- dang 7y agoI realize it's hard when provoked, but please don't reply to bad comments by breaking the site guidelines yourself. It just makes the thread even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y agoPersonal attacks and flamewar like this will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this on HN again.
- cagenut 7y agohi dang which side are you on? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-... the bodies are piling up. are you a polite german or a rude one? i'm a rude one.