4 ms·

I was very involved in this field about three years ago. Almost everything (>95%) is a fraud and the people running the show know it. They should be in jail.

senectus1 3y ago
I'm part of an org that is trying to ensure that Gov money doesn't go towards it. Do you have anything you can safely share?
- agumonkey 3y ago
  i'm also curious about your org now :)
Akronymus 3y ago
Carbon capture could theoretically work. With VERY heavy use of nuclear power, which the advocates for carbon capture, in my experience, almost always advocate against. And even then, the energy is much better used on other stuff.
briantakita 3y ago
The whole thing is a fraud to capture (no pun intended) markets...and put meters on what was once free.
darth_avocado 3y ago
Carbon capture is for fossil fuel industry what recycling is for plastic industry. Everyone knows it doesn’t work and we still keep trying.
- the_cat_kittles 3y ago
  you absolutely can recycle some plastics. hdpe, ldpe, eps to name a few. doesnt mean they are good, or we should keep using them. but you are wrong in general
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    There is a difference between can theoretically and can practically. That’s why we landfill or burn >90% of plastics. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
    - the_cat_kittles 3y ago
      you said it doesnt work- so i pointed out it does in fact work, in the literal sense. if you were implying that it doesnt work economically, then its more complicated. look at some of the eu, they successfully recycle a lot more thanks to more regulation and perhaps subsidies. so, it could work better here in america, if there were more laws as well as incentives. i run a eps (styrofoam) recycling facility btw.
Vuizur 3y ago
Do you mean direct air capture (DAC) or carbon capture and storage from burning fossil fuels?
nebula8804 3y ago
How are we going to deal with already emitted carbon after we transition to a post carbon world? I haven't looked at the latest UN climate change reports but I recall previous ones indicating that carbon capture needs to be part of the mix of solutions to limit us to ~2 degrees warming (now probably 2.3 degrees :/)
- candiodari 3y ago
  Or we can just face reality and start actively controlling the climate (meaning reduce temperature directly without doing what's essentially outlawed by the second law of thermodynamics. Ie. unmixing gases) Ironically, solar panels do exactly what. Especially on water. Water absorbs 93% of solar radiation. Solar panels aborb 30% to 70%. Global warming (all of it, all 150 years) is about a 0.7% change in albedo, so "bad" (30% absorption 70% reflection) solar planels on water (or concrete, or grass) undo ALL global warming on 90 times their surface area. And you can do better than that. You can just paint 3% of the land area of the planet of 1% of the ocean, and undo global warming.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    If the UN climate change panel is not talking about this I assume its probably nonsense. They have been at this for decades before "saving the environment" was even in vogue. Do you have any studies to back this up?
    - defrost 3y ago
      Reflecting sunlight back from space (bubbles in L2 (?) stable orbit), and reflecting sunlight back from high atmosphere (aerosol injection) have both been studied and atmospheric geoengineering has already begun at a tiny tiny scale by independant VC types. Reflection from ground based surfaces not so much - I suspect the issue is reflection isn't absolute and transfers heat - the oceans reflect back light while warming the ocean surface layer is already part of the dynamic, solar panels and other reflective objects will also heat up and transfer that heat to the lower atmosphere land|sea layer. That aside, there's some merit in the notion, it should have been looked at and there's likely a paper or three on the subject.

senectus1 3y ago

I'm part of an org that is trying to ensure that Gov money doesn't go towards it. Do you have anything you can safely share?

agumonkey 3y ago
i'm also curious about your org now :)

Akronymus 3y ago

Carbon capture could theoretically work. With VERY heavy use of nuclear power, which the advocates for carbon capture, in my experience, almost always advocate against. And even then, the energy is much better used on other stuff.

briantakita 3y ago

The whole thing is a fraud to capture (no pun intended) markets...and put meters on what was once free.

darth_avocado 3y ago

Carbon capture is for fossil fuel industry what recycling is for plastic industry. Everyone knows it doesn’t work and we still keep trying.

the_cat_kittles 3y ago
you absolutely can recycle some plastics. hdpe, ldpe, eps to name a few. doesnt mean they are good, or we should keep using them. but you are wrong in general
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  There is a difference between can theoretically and can practically. That’s why we landfill or burn >90% of plastics. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
  - the_cat_kittles 3y ago
    you said it doesnt work- so i pointed out it does in fact work, in the literal sense. if you were implying that it doesnt work economically, then its more complicated. look at some of the eu, they successfully recycle a lot more thanks to more regulation and perhaps subsidies. so, it could work better here in america, if there were more laws as well as incentives. i run a eps (styrofoam) recycling facility btw.

Vuizur 3y ago

Do you mean direct air capture (DAC) or carbon capture and storage from burning fossil fuels?

nebula8804 3y ago

How are we going to deal with already emitted carbon after we transition to a post carbon world? I haven't looked at the latest UN climate change reports but I recall previous ones indicating that carbon capture needs to be part of the mix of solutions to limit us to ~2 degrees warming (now probably 2.3 degrees :/)

candiodari 3y ago
Or we can just face reality and start actively controlling the climate (meaning reduce temperature directly without doing what's essentially outlawed by the second law of thermodynamics. Ie. unmixing gases) Ironically, solar panels do exactly what. Especially on water. Water absorbs 93% of solar radiation. Solar panels aborb 30% to 70%. Global warming (all of it, all 150 years) is about a 0.7% change in albedo, so "bad" (30% absorption 70% reflection) solar planels on water (or concrete, or grass) undo ALL global warming on 90 times their surface area. And you can do better than that. You can just paint 3% of the land area of the planet of 1% of the ocean, and undo global warming.
- nebula8804 3y ago
  If the UN climate change panel is not talking about this I assume its probably nonsense. They have been at this for decades before "saving the environment" was even in vogue. Do you have any studies to back this up?
  - defrost 3y ago
    Reflecting sunlight back from space (bubbles in L2 (?) stable orbit), and reflecting sunlight back from high atmosphere (aerosol injection) have both been studied and atmospheric geoengineering has already begun at a tiny tiny scale by independant VC types. Reflection from ground based surfaces not so much - I suspect the issue is reflection isn't absolute and transfers heat - the oceans reflect back light while warming the ocean surface layer is already part of the dynamic, solar panels and other reflective objects will also heat up and transfer that heat to the lower atmosphere land|sea layer. That aside, there's some merit in the notion, it should have been looked at and there's likely a paper or three on the subject.