3 ms·

> 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 wh

> 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.
- thinkcontext 7y ago
  Oh 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 ago
    I 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
  - cagenut 7y ago
    > Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. Here you are assuming we don't solve the problem as your first premise. Of course everything downstream of this will be faulty reasoning, because you are defining your start point as having already failed. > If you capture 1MT of CO2 and then use it to make aviation fuel Here you are taking your faulty premise and then heaping magic fantasy unicorn technology on top of it. Even if your starting point hadn't been wrong, you fail the time/carbon constraints of SR 1.5 here because this technology simply doesn't exist in a scalable way (and due to physics very likely never will). This is the practice of climate change denial in 2019. You don't outright deny the problem or the related challenges, you simply spam and ddos the conversation with tangential confused nonsense so that no progress is made. If you work in some kind of r&d lab on CC tech then by all means, prove me the fuck wrong, PLEASE. If you're just some guy on the internet then please please please wrap your brain around the time-carbon constraints we're solving for and stop arguing for us not to.

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.

thinkcontext 7y ago
Oh 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 ago
  I 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
- cagenut 7y ago
  > Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. Here you are assuming we don't solve the problem as your first premise. Of course everything downstream of this will be faulty reasoning, because you are defining your start point as having already failed. > If you capture 1MT of CO2 and then use it to make aviation fuel Here you are taking your faulty premise and then heaping magic fantasy unicorn technology on top of it. Even if your starting point hadn't been wrong, you fail the time/carbon constraints of SR 1.5 here because this technology simply doesn't exist in a scalable way (and due to physics very likely never will). This is the practice of climate change denial in 2019. You don't outright deny the problem or the related challenges, you simply spam and ddos the conversation with tangential confused nonsense so that no progress is made. If you work in some kind of r&d lab on CC tech then by all means, prove me the fuck wrong, PLEASE. If you're just some guy on the internet then please please please wrap your brain around the time-carbon constraints we're solving for and stop arguing for us not to.