7 ms·

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 G

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.

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.