5 ms·

It is impossible to clean anything with less energy and/or matter than what went into creating the problem. Period. This isn’t something that is up for discus

It is impossible to clean anything with less energy and/or matter than what went into creating the problem. Period. This isn’t something that is up for discussion. It’s the way the universe works.

DangitBobby 4y ago
Someone should tell that to the author of the article > A typical coal power plant emits a tonne of CO₂ for every 1,000 kWh of electricity it generates. Meanwhile, we learned that the energy needed to recapture 1 tonne of CO₂ from the air is at least 1,400 kWh. This means that recapturing the emissions of a coal power plant takes more energy than the coal plant produces! And those calculations are based on the much harder to filter concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyway, CO2 isn't the only byproduct, nor is it the only source of entropy. So we aren't trying to reverse all of the entropy for free, just part of it.
rcxdude 4y ago
That isn't the hard law of the universe (the universe cares little about 'clean' or 'problem'). You can't put it back the way it was, but you may be able to put it into a better position than it was before. Thermodynamics doesn't prevent carbon sequestration from working because the carbon dioxide is still carbon dioxide, not the hydrocarbons it was before (also there's a general presumption that even if you don't manage a cheaper sequestration than the original energy gained when producing it, you can still effectively 'pay back' some of the costs of fossil fuel generation with renewable generation, with interest).
- robomartin 4y ago
  > That isn't the hard law of the universe No. It is. One of many that say all the hand-wavy stuff sounds great until physics.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
If mining the fuel turning the CO2 into something solid at your leisure costs less than storing the solar energy, then it could be useful ajd a net win from a GHG POV. Main problem I see is it's not just the lump of coal or tonne of methane. It's the mine and the ship, and the fugitive methane and the flaming drinking water and the heavy metals leeching into the ground from the coal pile and the bagger 288 and the barium mine for mining fluid and ... etc.
- robomartin 4y ago
  Laws like conservation of energy are vicious. There is no escaping them. And they do not negotiate.
  - realusername 4y ago
    There's no law of conservation of CO2, that's not a thing. And we even have the proof of that in nature since trees are carbon negative.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > There's no law of conservation of CO2, that's not a thing. May I suggest a good book on first year physics? https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Sears+%26+Zemansky%27s+University+Physics https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Sears+%26+Zemansky%27s+University... I used a much earlier edition almost 40 years ago, when I took my first university physics class. As far as I know, the fundamentals have not changed. This would be a good investment if you really want to understand.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    If your MWh of solar costs $10 but is only available at a particular time, your MWh of Methane energy with CO2 collection costs $50, and storing the solar energy costs $80 then you've got $10 left to use 2MWh to turn 1MWh of CO2 into something you can bury (it doesn't need to be as energy dense as methane). No need to violate the first law (which is irrelevant) or the second law (which is a much harder criterion than the first and is relevant). Not that I support CCS as a solution as it has many unchecked externalities. Better to make ammonia or methane or hydrogen or methanol or something from sunlight ajd burn that if you need the energy density and storage needs of fuels.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > No need to violate the first law (which is irrelevant) That's preposterous. Of course it is relevant. Nothing on this planet can happen without answering to the accounting it demands. I've seen arguments posted such as "the earth has unlimited access to solar energy". This is usually followed by a hand-wavy "and then a miracle occurs" type statement that solves climate change in thirty years. Nobody --ever-- bothers to explain how, in no particular order: 1- We convert solar energy from from photons to something else without converting, say, 80% of it into heat (solar panels). That is brutally basic conservation of energy. That doesn't even account for the energy required to make, ship, install and maintain solar panels. 2- How it is that we REMOVE all of that energy we are going to use to save the planet from being utilized by system A to put it to work in system B and not kill all life on earth in the process. We don't get EXTRA solar energy. All life on earth has evolved and functions under this mostly constant beam of photons that hits us every day. You can't muck with that at a planetary scale without consequences. Simple example: Cover all ecuatorial land with solar panels. Fantastic. Everything under them dies. Not so great. That energy, hitting plants, land, water, etc, was actually doing something for the planet. It isn't some magical thing that has no purpose until we decide to save the planet. 3- How we are going to violate fundamental realities of efficiency (more like inefficiency) in everything we do. To do ANYTHING you need energy, time and resources (materials). Most of the processes being touted as solutions are horribly inefficient. This means most of the energy --no matter where it might come from-- will be wasted as heat. No material or resource is used with 100% efficiency either. Everyone conveniently ignores reality when suggesting magical PLANETARY SCALE "solutions". What does "planetary scale" mean? It means more energy materials than one could possibly imagine. It also means manufacturing, moving, installing and maintaining things at a never-before-seen rate and scale. It means producing things OVER AND ABOVE ANYTHING HUMANITY MAKES TODAY at a rate and at a volume that might equal or dwarf the entire industrial output of the planet today. Everyone ignores the --likely-- billions of gallons of bunker fuel, diesel and gasoline we will have to burn just to make, move, install, operate and maintain these magical solutions. It's easy to think-up magical solutions that sound great. It is impossible to build them if they don't pass basic physics. There's a simple reason for which none of these things are being done outside of politician's imaginations or laboratories living off grants to conduct research that feeds said politicians so grant money keeps rolling in: They don't survive the test of deployment at scale because none of them pass physics. Not one. They can't.

DangitBobby 4y ago

Someone should tell that to the author of the article > A typical coal power plant emits a tonne of CO₂ for every 1,000 kWh of electricity it generates. Meanwhile, we learned that the energy needed to recapture 1 tonne of CO₂ from the air is at least 1,400 kWh. This means that recapturing the emissions of a coal power plant takes more energy than the coal plant produces! And those calculations are based on the much harder to filter concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyway, CO2 isn't the only byproduct, nor is it the only source of entropy. So we aren't trying to reverse all of the entropy for free, just part of it.

rcxdude 4y ago

That isn't the hard law of the universe (the universe cares little about 'clean' or 'problem'). You can't put it back the way it was, but you may be able to put it into a better position than it was before. Thermodynamics doesn't prevent carbon sequestration from working because the carbon dioxide is still carbon dioxide, not the hydrocarbons it was before (also there's a general presumption that even if you don't manage a cheaper sequestration than the original energy gained when producing it, you can still effectively 'pay back' some of the costs of fossil fuel generation with renewable generation, with interest).

robomartin 4y ago
> That isn't the hard law of the universe No. It is. One of many that say all the hand-wavy stuff sounds great until physics.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

If mining the fuel turning the CO2 into something solid at your leisure costs less than storing the solar energy, then it could be useful ajd a net win from a GHG POV. Main problem I see is it's not just the lump of coal or tonne of methane. It's the mine and the ship, and the fugitive methane and the flaming drinking water and the heavy metals leeching into the ground from the coal pile and the bagger 288 and the barium mine for mining fluid and ... etc.

robomartin 4y ago
Laws like conservation of energy are vicious. There is no escaping them. And they do not negotiate.
- realusername 4y ago
  There's no law of conservation of CO2, that's not a thing. And we even have the proof of that in nature since trees are carbon negative.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > There's no law of conservation of CO2, that's not a thing. May I suggest a good book on first year physics? https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Sears+%26+Zemansky%27s+University+Physics https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Sears+%26+Zemansky%27s+University... I used a much earlier edition almost 40 years ago, when I took my first university physics class. As far as I know, the fundamentals have not changed. This would be a good investment if you really want to understand.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If your MWh of solar costs $10 but is only available at a particular time, your MWh of Methane energy with CO2 collection costs $50, and storing the solar energy costs $80 then you've got $10 left to use 2MWh to turn 1MWh of CO2 into something you can bury (it doesn't need to be as energy dense as methane). No need to violate the first law (which is irrelevant) or the second law (which is a much harder criterion than the first and is relevant). Not that I support CCS as a solution as it has many unchecked externalities. Better to make ammonia or methane or hydrogen or methanol or something from sunlight ajd burn that if you need the energy density and storage needs of fuels.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > No need to violate the first law (which is irrelevant) That's preposterous. Of course it is relevant. Nothing on this planet can happen without answering to the accounting it demands. I've seen arguments posted such as "the earth has unlimited access to solar energy". This is usually followed by a hand-wavy "and then a miracle occurs" type statement that solves climate change in thirty years. Nobody --ever-- bothers to explain how, in no particular order: 1- We convert solar energy from from photons to something else without converting, say, 80% of it into heat (solar panels). That is brutally basic conservation of energy. That doesn't even account for the energy required to make, ship, install and maintain solar panels. 2- How it is that we REMOVE all of that energy we are going to use to save the planet from being utilized by system A to put it to work in system B and not kill all life on earth in the process. We don't get EXTRA solar energy. All life on earth has evolved and functions under this mostly constant beam of photons that hits us every day. You can't muck with that at a planetary scale without consequences. Simple example: Cover all ecuatorial land with solar panels. Fantastic. Everything under them dies. Not so great. That energy, hitting plants, land, water, etc, was actually doing something for the planet. It isn't some magical thing that has no purpose until we decide to save the planet. 3- How we are going to violate fundamental realities of efficiency (more like inefficiency) in everything we do. To do ANYTHING you need energy, time and resources (materials). Most of the processes being touted as solutions are horribly inefficient. This means most of the energy --no matter where it might come from-- will be wasted as heat. No material or resource is used with 100% efficiency either. Everyone conveniently ignores reality when suggesting magical PLANETARY SCALE "solutions". What does "planetary scale" mean? It means more energy materials than one could possibly imagine. It also means manufacturing, moving, installing and maintaining things at a never-before-seen rate and scale. It means producing things OVER AND ABOVE ANYTHING HUMANITY MAKES TODAY at a rate and at a volume that might equal or dwarf the entire industrial output of the planet today. Everyone ignores the --likely-- billions of gallons of bunker fuel, diesel and gasoline we will have to burn just to make, move, install, operate and maintain these magical solutions. It's easy to think-up magical solutions that sound great. It is impossible to build them if they don't pass basic physics. There's a simple reason for which none of these things are being done outside of politician's imaginations or laboratories living off grants to conduct research that feeds said politicians so grant money keeps rolling in: They don't survive the test of deployment at scale because none of them pass physics. Not one. They can't.