6 ms·

How about we stop burning coal first. That’s not unproven and is much effective. This is just silliness.

by slashdev 3y ago

catchnear4321 3y ago
Where is the money in that?
peteradio 3y ago
How bout stop flying. It's easy to take away other peoples needs and wants.
- slashdev 3y ago
  There are alternatives to coal.
  - cies 3y ago
    There are alternatives to anything.
- yoyohello13 3y ago
  With the cost of flights these days, I've already stopped.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- drekk 3y ago
  China implemented a nationwide high speed rail network while California debated maybe building a segment. It's possible to satisfy transit (and other) needs in a way that sustains growth and scales efficiently. Building more parking lots and highways doesn't really scale; Americans have so many domestic flights as a result. Of course, if the goal is to profit from moving people around you get perverse rent-seeking and $15 cling wrap turkey sandwiches in a CIBO kiosk. I would argue moving people around easily and efficiently is intrinsically good the same way building a well-utilized library is. The US has an incredibly successful geography that it has strategically not fully tapped. I'm just spitballing here but sending 70% of domestic freight via trucks is excremental. Having transit routes that run slower today than they did in the 20th century is unacceptable. Complete and utter lack of imagination or political willpower
  - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
    I'll be curious to see if the Chinese high speed rail survives. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-railways-plunge-from-high-profits-into-a-debt-trap/ https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-rai...
  - cmh89 3y ago
    There is really no reason there needs to be flights between the major cities in the north east. It's wild that its not easy and quick to get between major cities. New York City and Boston are roughly 200 miles apart and it takes four hours by car and four hours by transit. Tokyo and Osaka are 365 miles apart by car and an seven hour drive, but you can get between the two cities in three hours by using transit.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  > How bout stop flying. That would be a good step to take. > It's easy to take away other peoples needs and wants. I'm not sure what you're saying here, but what we're seeing now is just consequences of 50 years of global inaction. You want to blame someone, blame the people who have been in charge for the past two generations, not people today.
DennisP 3y ago
It's basically too late to stay under 1.5 by just cutting emissions. By the time we do eliminate emissions, we're going to need air capture already scaling up. Fortunately, it's possible for civilization to do more than one thing at a time.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Some sequences of events make sense: It is not possible to benefit from direct carbon capture cleanly before dirty energy sources are replaced. It would just add to the problem, mainly in the carbon cost of building appropriate energy sources for capture. No free lunch. In this case doing "more than one thing at a time" amounts to trying to have one's cake while feeling good about baking it with coal-generated electricity.
- blueflow 3y ago
  Its not emissions that are the problem, its the extra carbon that we dig out and insert it into the existing capture - emissions cycle. And since no technologies exist that can do permanent recapture to undo that at a useful scale (and probably never will because its a conservation of energy problem), its a debt we'll never be able to pay back.
  - worldsayshi 3y ago
    It should be possible if we gain access to "almost infinite" energy right? It would be absurd to assume it but if we really get fusion energy going and then if we get serious cost reductions in space based solar. Sure it's all (hard) science fiction but I feel like we're giving up on realistic near term solutions anyway.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      As long as electricity generation is a profit making endeavor, it doesn't matter what the source is, generating companies will never build enough of it to significantly drop costs. "Energy too cheap to meter" was always a lie. Capitalism always makes it more profitable to make too little of something rather than too much.
carrigan 3y ago
I agree that we need to cut back our current emissions. Even if we stopped emitting all greenhouses gasses tomorrow, the global temperature would continue to rise for decades before stabilizing, so there is still plenty of need to capture what we've already let out. I'm fairly bearish on direct capture solving much though. It requires so much capital and energy just to replicate the carbon capture that we can already do just by growing plants. I hope that companies like Charm will also get significant funding to pursue using plants for the capture part.
- qikInNdOutReply 3y ago
  The tandem component for direct capture is a clean energy source ala fusion or a solar price drop to a price point on par. So it would make sense to make continued research depending on fusion break throughs.
- Charlie_26 3y ago
  What is Charm?
- slashdev 3y ago
  The most cost efficient way to do carbon capture is on the smoke stacks of coal power plants. Better than that is not burning the stuff in the first place. Both are way more efficient than these boondoggles trying to pull co2 out of the air where it exists at 400 ppm 0.04%. If we’re not doing the first two, why bother with the last? There’s no logic in this. I agree with you we’ll need to remove co2 eventually. But before we worry about that let’s focus editing on stopping making it worse. The payoff there is much higher!
the_third_wave 3y ago
Go tell the German "green" party which just switched off the last three remaining nuclear power plants and pushed their country back to having coal - and not just any coal but lignite, the most-polluting type of coal which they get from strip mines - as their main energy source. That is silliness. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/atomic-angst-over-germany-closes-last-nuclear-plants-2023-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/atomic-angst-over-germa...
- slashdev 3y ago
  It is indeed silliness, and out of character for Germans who have a reputation for being practical.

How about we stop burning coal first. That’s not unproven and is much effective. This is just silliness.

catchnear4321 3y ago

Where is the money in that?

peteradio 3y ago

How bout stop flying. It's easy to take away other peoples needs and wants.

slashdev 3y ago
There are alternatives to coal.
- cies 3y ago
  There are alternatives to anything.
yoyohello13 3y ago
With the cost of flights these days, I've already stopped.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
drekk 3y ago
China implemented a nationwide high speed rail network while California debated maybe building a segment. It's possible to satisfy transit (and other) needs in a way that sustains growth and scales efficiently. Building more parking lots and highways doesn't really scale; Americans have so many domestic flights as a result. Of course, if the goal is to profit from moving people around you get perverse rent-seeking and $15 cling wrap turkey sandwiches in a CIBO kiosk. I would argue moving people around easily and efficiently is intrinsically good the same way building a well-utilized library is. The US has an incredibly successful geography that it has strategically not fully tapped. I'm just spitballing here but sending 70% of domestic freight via trucks is excremental. Having transit routes that run slower today than they did in the 20th century is unacceptable. Complete and utter lack of imagination or political willpower
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  I'll be curious to see if the Chinese high speed rail survives. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-railways-plunge-from-high-profits-into-a-debt-trap/ https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/chinas-high-speed-rai...
- cmh89 3y ago
  There is really no reason there needs to be flights between the major cities in the north east. It's wild that its not easy and quick to get between major cities. New York City and Boston are roughly 200 miles apart and it takes four hours by car and four hours by transit. Tokyo and Osaka are 365 miles apart by car and an seven hour drive, but you can get between the two cities in three hours by using transit.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
> How bout stop flying. That would be a good step to take. > It's easy to take away other peoples needs and wants. I'm not sure what you're saying here, but what we're seeing now is just consequences of 50 years of global inaction. You want to blame someone, blame the people who have been in charge for the past two generations, not people today.

DennisP 3y ago

It's basically too late to stay under 1.5 by just cutting emissions. By the time we do eliminate emissions, we're going to need air capture already scaling up. Fortunately, it's possible for civilization to do more than one thing at a time.

Zigurd 3y ago
Some sequences of events make sense: It is not possible to benefit from direct carbon capture cleanly before dirty energy sources are replaced. It would just add to the problem, mainly in the carbon cost of building appropriate energy sources for capture. No free lunch. In this case doing "more than one thing at a time" amounts to trying to have one's cake while feeling good about baking it with coal-generated electricity.
blueflow 3y ago
Its not emissions that are the problem, its the extra carbon that we dig out and insert it into the existing capture - emissions cycle. And since no technologies exist that can do permanent recapture to undo that at a useful scale (and probably never will because its a conservation of energy problem), its a debt we'll never be able to pay back.
- worldsayshi 3y ago
  It should be possible if we gain access to "almost infinite" energy right? It would be absurd to assume it but if we really get fusion energy going and then if we get serious cost reductions in space based solar. Sure it's all (hard) science fiction but I feel like we're giving up on realistic near term solutions anyway.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    As long as electricity generation is a profit making endeavor, it doesn't matter what the source is, generating companies will never build enough of it to significantly drop costs. "Energy too cheap to meter" was always a lie. Capitalism always makes it more profitable to make too little of something rather than too much.

carrigan 3y ago

I agree that we need to cut back our current emissions. Even if we stopped emitting all greenhouses gasses tomorrow, the global temperature would continue to rise for decades before stabilizing, so there is still plenty of need to capture what we've already let out. I'm fairly bearish on direct capture solving much though. It requires so much capital and energy just to replicate the carbon capture that we can already do just by growing plants. I hope that companies like Charm will also get significant funding to pursue using plants for the capture part.

qikInNdOutReply 3y ago
The tandem component for direct capture is a clean energy source ala fusion or a solar price drop to a price point on par. So it would make sense to make continued research depending on fusion break throughs.
Charlie_26 3y ago
What is Charm?
slashdev 3y ago
The most cost efficient way to do carbon capture is on the smoke stacks of coal power plants. Better than that is not burning the stuff in the first place. Both are way more efficient than these boondoggles trying to pull co2 out of the air where it exists at 400 ppm 0.04%. If we’re not doing the first two, why bother with the last? There’s no logic in this. I agree with you we’ll need to remove co2 eventually. But before we worry about that let’s focus editing on stopping making it worse. The payoff there is much higher!

the_third_wave 3y ago

Go tell the German "green" party which just switched off the last three remaining nuclear power plants and pushed their country back to having coal - and not just any coal but lignite, the most-polluting type of coal which they get from strip mines - as their main energy source. That is silliness. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/atomic-angst-over-germany-closes-last-nuclear-plants-2023-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/atomic-angst-over-germa...

slashdev 3y ago
It is indeed silliness, and out of character for Germans who have a reputation for being practical.