3 ms·

I have read this analysis several times, and near as I can tell you’re basically saying “if blowing up a stick of dynamite provides x energy, we can just use th

I have read this analysis several times, and near as I can tell you’re basically saying “if blowing up a stick of dynamite provides x energy, we can just use that same x energy to find all the original bits of that stick and put it back together”.

GreedClarifies 3y ago
We're not talking about some kind of very complex macro object. We're talking about converting hydrocarbons -> CO2 + water (or whatever if you care) and reversing that reaction (or similar, since we may want something more stable than hydrocarbons). There are already machines which do this (anything that does photosynthesis). We're just going to play around the edges of making the reaction more efficient and/or the results more stable.
- stouset 3y ago
  Oil before burning is an incredibly concentrated source of carbon. After burning, it’s less than 0.05% of the makeup of the atmosphere. If it were so simple, we’d be doing it. Over here in reality, carbon capture remains a difficult and unsolved problem in practice, requiring enormous amounts of energy that is—at present—generally far better put to use replacing carbon-based forms of energy than trying to put the carbon genie back into the oil barrel.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    That's an interesting way to move the goalposts. You started with a complex macro object and said it's difficult to reassemble. I noted that the reaction is actually simple, this isn't an information problem. This is a technology problem, and one we are actively working on. And with the correct technology it is a not a large problem.
    - stouset 3y ago
      Yes, not a large problem at all. We just have to bioengineer a new organism that has to be wildly successful in its biome while simultaneously not becoming food for other aquatic life nor subject to decomposition after death. Trivial, really.

3 ms·

I have read this analysis several times, and near as I can tell you’re basically saying “if blowing up a stick of dynamite provides x energy, we can just use th

by stouset 3y ago

GreedClarifies 3y ago
We're not talking about some kind of very complex macro object. We're talking about converting hydrocarbons -> CO2 + water (or whatever if you care) and reversing that reaction (or similar, since we may want something more stable than hydrocarbons). There are already machines which do this (anything that does photosynthesis). We're just going to play around the edges of making the reaction more efficient and/or the results more stable.
- stouset 3y ago
  Oil before burning is an incredibly concentrated source of carbon. After burning, it’s less than 0.05% of the makeup of the atmosphere. If it were so simple, we’d be doing it. Over here in reality, carbon capture remains a difficult and unsolved problem in practice, requiring enormous amounts of energy that is—at present—generally far better put to use replacing carbon-based forms of energy than trying to put the carbon genie back into the oil barrel.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    That's an interesting way to move the goalposts. You started with a complex macro object and said it's difficult to reassemble. I noted that the reaction is actually simple, this isn't an information problem. This is a technology problem, and one we are actively working on. And with the correct technology it is a not a large problem.
    - stouset 3y ago
      Yes, not a large problem at all. We just have to bioengineer a new organism that has to be wildly successful in its biome while simultaneously not becoming food for other aquatic life nor subject to decomposition after death. Trivial, really.