4 ms·

So we shouldn't try because the scale?

by leesec 5y ago

thereisnospork 5y ago
Fighting an unwinnable battle is rarely a wise allocation of resources.
- leesec 5y ago
  Extremely defeatist attitude to call mankind's survival an unwinnable battle.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Not fighting the battle is also unwinnable.
nix23 5y ago
Stop pumping C02 into the atmosphere and massive reforestation (not directly for binding C02 but to give moisture into the air which gives other plants a chance to grow for them self's and strengthen the ground)...in short, try to reinstate nature as it was, because we little humans cannot do what nature did for millions of years (washing and binding C02 out the atmosphere and into the ground). The point is on "millions" of years. We really went too far and there is nothing we can do to "revers" it, for the first time in ~100 years humans will have to adapt to nature and not the other way around.
Arnt 5y ago
No, you misunderstand. Capturing CO₂ from typical atmosphere is a very difficult problem, and it's a big problem too. Talking about that distracts from a problem that's much smaller and more accessible, namely capturing CO₂ from the parts of the atmosphere where there's very much CO₂. The photo shows a number of pipelines that guide CO₂ up and release it. Capturing it at the top of the photo, in the open air, is very much more difficult and expensive than capturing it near the middle, in those big vertical things. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=/0x0:4814x3562/920x613/filters:focal(2022x1396:2792x2166):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69054702/1231898565.0.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=... If you start thinking about how to capture it in the middle of the photo, you very quickly also consider other ways of achieving the same goal at the same site. Capturing CO₂ is damned expensive compared to those other ways, and the discussion is a distraction. IMO capturing old CO₂ is necessary (as the article says) but when discussed it's usually contrasted to current emissions rather than old emissions, and it's hopelessly inefficient compared to current emissions. We can't go back in time and avoid old emissions, so avoiding capture isn't IMO possible. For the time being it's irrelevant because there current level of emissions (the highest of all time) presents us with very much to do that's both simpler and cheaper.
- roenxi 5y ago
  FYI, there probably aren't coal stacks aren't visible in that photo. Or if they are they aren't obvious. What it is showcasing is the cooling towers (ie, water vapour). There is a reason that there is a large lake in the frame. It isn't decorative or accidental. The coal stacks are likely to be much thinner and the gasses less visible.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Oh, fuck. Sorry. I even knew that, but the test suite had finished running and I had to hurry.

So we shouldn't try because the scale?

by leesec 5y ago

So we shouldn't try because the scale?

thereisnospork 5y ago

Fighting an unwinnable battle is rarely a wise allocation of resources.

leesec 5y ago
Extremely defeatist attitude to call mankind's survival an unwinnable battle.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dredmorbius 5y ago
Not fighting the battle is also unwinnable.

nix23 5y ago

Stop pumping C02 into the atmosphere and massive reforestation (not directly for binding C02 but to give moisture into the air which gives other plants a chance to grow for them self's and strengthen the ground)...in short, try to reinstate nature as it was, because we little humans cannot do what nature did for millions of years (washing and binding C02 out the atmosphere and into the ground). The point is on "millions" of years. We really went too far and there is nothing we can do to "revers" it, for the first time in ~100 years humans will have to adapt to nature and not the other way around.

Arnt 5y ago

No, you misunderstand. Capturing CO₂ from typical atmosphere is a very difficult problem, and it's a big problem too. Talking about that distracts from a problem that's much smaller and more accessible, namely capturing CO₂ from the parts of the atmosphere where there's very much CO₂. The photo shows a number of pipelines that guide CO₂ up and release it. Capturing it at the top of the photo, in the open air, is very much more difficult and expensive than capturing it near the middle, in those big vertical things. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=/0x0:4814x3562/920x613/filters:focal(2022x1396:2792x2166):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69054702/1231898565.0.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=... If you start thinking about how to capture it in the middle of the photo, you very quickly also consider other ways of achieving the same goal at the same site. Capturing CO₂ is damned expensive compared to those other ways, and the discussion is a distraction. IMO capturing old CO₂ is necessary (as the article says) but when discussed it's usually contrasted to current emissions rather than old emissions, and it's hopelessly inefficient compared to current emissions. We can't go back in time and avoid old emissions, so avoiding capture isn't IMO possible. For the time being it's irrelevant because there current level of emissions (the highest of all time) presents us with very much to do that's both simpler and cheaper.

roenxi 5y ago
FYI, there probably aren't coal stacks aren't visible in that photo. Or if they are they aren't obvious. What it is showcasing is the cooling towers (ie, water vapour). There is a reason that there is a large lake in the frame. It isn't decorative or accidental. The coal stacks are likely to be much thinner and the gasses less visible.
- Arnt 5y ago
  Oh, fuck. Sorry. I even knew that, but the test suite had finished running and I had to hurry.