3 ms·

It’s not much on a global scale, given the nature of the problem it would be solving. And if it works we have a nice little renewable power infrastructure as a

It’s not much on a global scale, given the nature of the problem it would be solving. And if it works we have a nice little renewable power infrastructure as a byproduct The real problem is people and our near inability to coordinate at that scale

kragen 4y ago
agreed, or even, as demonstrated in parts of this thread, people's inability to come to an agreement on widely-known facts that conflict with their ego defense
- conductr 4y ago
  I know I’m not the right person to assess the validity, but if there were some consensus among those who are I’d support the expense.
  - kragen 4y ago
    i'm not sure what to recommend. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/ee/d1ee03523a https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/ee/d1ee0352... is recent, open access, and seems to be well written, but i haven't finished reading it. it includes, among other things, a process flow diagram with theoretical numbers for the calcium loop which gives slightly lower numbers than my own calculations i linked upthread i did read https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103990 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103990 which is also recent and open access. it is very poorly written and contains a lot of embarrassing factual errors; however, it has a number of specific and hopefully correct numbers about energy costs lifted from other publications which are hopefully more trustworthy. on the gripping hand, none of them that i've tracked down so far report operational energy consumption numbers from an actually built large-scale dac plant https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2982422 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2982422 is an earlier (02016) survey paper that i also haven't read in detail yet, though it looks good none of these papers incorporate the awareness that energy costs have just gone through the first big drop in a century and a half, perhaps because that future is not yet widely distributed

kragen 4y ago

agreed, or even, as demonstrated in parts of this thread, people's inability to come to an agreement on widely-known facts that conflict with their ego defense

conductr 4y ago
I know I’m not the right person to assess the validity, but if there were some consensus among those who are I’d support the expense.
- kragen 4y ago
  i'm not sure what to recommend. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/ee/d1ee03523a https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/ee/d1ee0352... is recent, open access, and seems to be well written, but i haven't finished reading it. it includes, among other things, a process flow diagram with theoretical numbers for the calcium loop which gives slightly lower numbers than my own calculations i linked upthread i did read https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103990 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103990 which is also recent and open access. it is very poorly written and contains a lot of embarrassing factual errors; however, it has a number of specific and hopefully correct numbers about energy costs lifted from other publications which are hopefully more trustworthy. on the gripping hand, none of them that i've tracked down so far report operational energy consumption numbers from an actually built large-scale dac plant https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2982422 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2982422 is an earlier (02016) survey paper that i also haven't read in detail yet, though it looks good none of these papers incorporate the awareness that energy costs have just gone through the first big drop in a century and a half, perhaps because that future is not yet widely distributed