4 ms·

How are they irrelevant? The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Preventing

How are they irrelevant? The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Preventing other countries from doing the same for the sake of protecting the environment (which by the way is never in stasis) is simply condemning people to poverty, disease, basically to cripple poor nations. It seems very nationalistic under the guise of protecting the environment. >undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of the entire planet. So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air? >It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with biofuels. The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being better, because of legacy vehicles. There are many reasons why biofuel hasn't taken off in the US but in many other countries it has. So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? The problem they solved then was not fuel recycling, it was carbon capture. You can look it up (I'm on mobile) and state the issues with it. Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions.

ben_w 6y ago
> How are they irrelevant? To be blunt, you come across as having as shallow a grasp of this topic as I have of general relativity. I like learning about GR, but if I ask real physicists questions about it, the responses are, at best, “what are you even talking about?” > The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Better, cheaper, alternatives exist now. PV + battery is cheaper than new coal plants even in northern Europe, and almost everywhere has better solar than northern Europe. > So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air? They are called “fossil fuels” for a reason. We dug up fossilised remains which were not part of the biosphere. > The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being better, because of legacy vehicles. It’s a heat engine, and heat engine efficiency depends on the difference between the hot side and the cold side. You maximise efficiency by running as hot as possible, not as cold as possible. Hydrogen and batteries are both better. > So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? You’re the one suggesting carbon capture (that’s what planting trees is); I’m saying don’t emit carbon in the first place. > Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions. Except that as I already told you, a billion trees isn’t enough. A billion trees is about three months of emissions, even assuming you prevent the trees rotting or burning at the end of their lives. If you just turn them into wood, that only delays the problem by a few centuries at best.

ben_w 6y ago

> How are they irrelevant? To be blunt, you come across as having as shallow a grasp of this topic as I have of general relativity. I like learning about GR, but if I ask real physicists questions about it, the responses are, at best, “what are you even talking about?” > The reason there are countries that developed and became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels. Better, cheaper, alternatives exist now. PV + battery is cheaper than new coal plants even in northern Europe, and almost everywhere has better solar than northern Europe. > So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air? They are called “fossil fuels” for a reason. We dug up fossilised remains which were not part of the biosphere. > The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being better, because of legacy vehicles. It’s a heat engine, and heat engine efficiency depends on the difference between the hot side and the cold side. You maximise efficiency by running as hot as possible, not as cold as possible. Hydrogen and batteries are both better. > So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? You’re the one suggesting carbon capture (that’s what planting trees is); I’m saying don’t emit carbon in the first place. > Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions. Except that as I already told you, a billion trees isn’t enough. A billion trees is about three months of emissions, even assuming you prevent the trees rotting or burning at the end of their lives. If you just turn them into wood, that only delays the problem by a few centuries at best.