4 ms·

>there is no technological reason why it cannot work There is, however, a big thermodynamics reason: EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_inve

>there is no technological reason why it cannot work There is, however, a big thermodynamics reason: EROEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
I do not understand the argument. Historically you were describing harvesting some resource (oil from the ground, sun from the sky, wind from the air, etc) and calculating your return. Carbon capture is about taking energy today and converting it into a different form of stored energy. Energy conversion is not lossless -you end up with less embodied energy than you started. Who cares? If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia, you can now “store sunlight” for night or seasonal grid backup in winter. It comes down to economics. Electricity is less valuable than a combustible fuel in several contexts.
- CapstanRoller 2y ago
  >If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia And that overproduced solar is made using... petroleum. The argument is very simple: we're basically just burning up oil with extra steps, then pretending the intermediate products can somehow undo the damage caused by burning up that oil (and now claiming that we're getting fuel back!) aka "extend and pretend" We need to stop putting that carbon into the atmosphere, because the reality is that the process isn't reversible on human timescales. The only answer seems to be degrowth, but asking for negative GDP is basically heresy.
  - foobarkey 2y ago
    Your math is bonkers somewhere, solar panels can for sure capture more energy than ehat we used to produce them
    - CapstanRoller 2y ago
      >Your math is bonkers somewhere Not my math. Industry's math. And it's bonkers because "green products" have to sell, electric cars have to sell, etc. The economy has to keep growing. Big Line has to keep going up. What doesn't sell, but might actually help us get out of this mess? Mass transit, dense subsidized housing, remote work, degrowth (negative GDP). None of this stuff sells, especially the last one. >they can I'm not arguing hypotheticals here https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-will-admit https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-pa...
foobarkey 2y ago
True but it’s also OK if EROEI is less than one when using renewables (think solar in africa) In fact ROI is more important to focus on, given solar panels last 20 years and the cost of installation is covered in 10 years, it will create profit for 10 (oversimplifying). Then the methane can be converted to LNG and transported by ship to Europe/US or somewhere else
- CapstanRoller 2y ago
  Wait, who is talking about profit? You can make "profit" appear anywhere by playing with spreadsheets. Spreadsheets do not reflect the actual reality of our rapidly-heating planet and dying biosphere, though.
  - foobarkey 2y ago
    If you haven’t noticed we got into this mess by chasing profit, the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable that’s why making money is important part of the puzzle. Alternatively some sort of world government or dictatorship would work too, but in democratic/capitalist society the problem wont get solved unless someone can make the moneys
    - CapstanRoller 2y ago
      >the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable Same energy as "yeah we got addicted to heroin, and the best way of getting out of this mess is to subsidize heroin so we can keep buying" How about not putting that carbon into the atmosphere in the first place? Oops, that upsets The Big Line. >democratic/capitalist The fact that you put these words together with that symbol clearly demonstrates that you Just Don't Get It. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair, probably

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

I do not understand the argument. Historically you were describing harvesting some resource (oil from the ground, sun from the sky, wind from the air, etc) and calculating your return. Carbon capture is about taking energy today and converting it into a different form of stored energy. Energy conversion is not lossless -you end up with less embodied energy than you started. Who cares? If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia, you can now “store sunlight” for night or seasonal grid backup in winter. It comes down to economics. Electricity is less valuable than a combustible fuel in several contexts.

CapstanRoller 2y ago
>If you are taking overproduced solar and turning it into methane/ammonia And that overproduced solar is made using... petroleum. The argument is very simple: we're basically just burning up oil with extra steps, then pretending the intermediate products can somehow undo the damage caused by burning up that oil (and now claiming that we're getting fuel back!) aka "extend and pretend" We need to stop putting that carbon into the atmosphere, because the reality is that the process isn't reversible on human timescales. The only answer seems to be degrowth, but asking for negative GDP is basically heresy.
- foobarkey 2y ago
  Your math is bonkers somewhere, solar panels can for sure capture more energy than ehat we used to produce them
  - CapstanRoller 2y ago
    >Your math is bonkers somewhere Not my math. Industry's math. And it's bonkers because "green products" have to sell, electric cars have to sell, etc. The economy has to keep growing. Big Line has to keep going up. What doesn't sell, but might actually help us get out of this mess? Mass transit, dense subsidized housing, remote work, degrowth (negative GDP). None of this stuff sells, especially the last one. >they can I'm not arguing hypotheticals here https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-will-admit https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-pa...

foobarkey 2y ago

True but it’s also OK if EROEI is less than one when using renewables (think solar in africa) In fact ROI is more important to focus on, given solar panels last 20 years and the cost of installation is covered in 10 years, it will create profit for 10 (oversimplifying). Then the methane can be converted to LNG and transported by ship to Europe/US or somewhere else

CapstanRoller 2y ago
Wait, who is talking about profit? You can make "profit" appear anywhere by playing with spreadsheets. Spreadsheets do not reflect the actual reality of our rapidly-heating planet and dying biosphere, though.
- foobarkey 2y ago
  If you haven’t noticed we got into this mess by chasing profit, the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable that’s why making money is important part of the puzzle. Alternatively some sort of world government or dictatorship would work too, but in democratic/capitalist society the problem wont get solved unless someone can make the moneys
  - CapstanRoller 2y ago
    >the best chance to get out of it is to make carbon capture economically viable Same energy as "yeah we got addicted to heroin, and the best way of getting out of this mess is to subsidize heroin so we can keep buying" How about not putting that carbon into the atmosphere in the first place? Oops, that upsets The Big Line. >democratic/capitalist The fact that you put these words together with that symbol clearly demonstrates that you Just Don't Get It. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair, probably