4 ms·

Point capture and atmospheric capture are vastly different processes, economics for point capture are great, economics for atmospheric capture are terrible due

by acyou 2y ago

Point capture and atmospheric capture are vastly different processes, economics for point capture are great, economics for atmospheric capture are terrible due to the thermodynamic high energy input inherently required for separating out a low concentration (400 parts per million) substance. But this article puts both processes in the same category, which perfectly sets up a low-information, divisive debate. Why they would want to do that - well, some people stand to gain a lot from renewable energy program investment, let's put it that way.

lblume 2y ago
> some people stand to gain a lot from renewable energy program investment Yes, everyone in fact.
- rank0 2y ago
  Hate to break it to you but the people producing and selling solar panels don’t give a fuck about the environment. Neither do you. I feel like Im ruining santa claus…
  - lblume 2y ago
    > the people producing and selling solar panels don’t give a fuck about the environment They sure as hell are incentivized to at least make others do. An increased awareness for environmental issues is profitable. I would go further and think that genuine interest in the future of humanity is more plausible than the required cognitive dissonance. > Neither do you. Completely needless accusation.
    - rank0 2y ago
      Why on earth are solar panels seen as righteous? You’re so indoctrinated that it borders on worship. Go look into who makes them and how. Producing solar, batteries, wind farms EMITS carbon and has large environmental impact. The energy sector will sell you whatever… > > Neither do you. > Completely needless accusation. 99% of environmentalists are just posturing. I guess it’s possible you’re different, but just remember you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived.
      - lblume 2y ago
        The environmental impacts of these technologies are well documented and reported. However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike. Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale because we simply can't emit as much carbon as would be required for fossil power plants. Again, you can check the numbers for yourself. > you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived. That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy. While the Western industrial lifestyle is still unsustainable, I do think these small-scale changes are beneficial. Of course the ambient societal carbon emissions are incomparable to pre-Industrial timeframes, but that is widely known.
        rank0 2y ago
        Thanks for the response! I am not anti-solar, and the technology absolutely has it's niche. It's just not suitable for base-load power generation. > However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels This is untrue but for the record, I'm referencing climate impact, not just emissions. Solar has great emissions compared to FF in VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Its obvious that solar only works intermittently, and only provides efficient power in places where we have lots of sun next to large demand (think population centers). Most of the worlds solar panels are produced in China, where they burn coal for the bulk of their industrial energy. Burning coal to produce panels, and placing them in non-sunny regions creates extra emissions, not less...frequently not even breaking even on the carbon cost of the initial production/distribution during the lifespan of the panel. > fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike Of course I don't actively dislike inanimate substance. This is what freaks me out about the cult-like support for solar. Without fossil fuels, we would lose access to food, shelter, medicine, infrastructure, etc. The way some people talk, I'm starting to think the renewable crowd believes it's "worth it." > Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale 1. We could use other forms of power generation...solar is not the only game in town. 2. The materials required for solar production are finite. It's unsustainable to extract/process all the materials required for such a feat, barring some sort of physics breakthrough in hyperconductivity. We literally do not have the materials OR the technology. > That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy. That's all well and good, but once you start taking flights, using infrastructure , electronics, ML workloads, developing software, etc, you've already beaten most others today and historically. How many african peasants worth of emissions do you think your lifestyle produces? How do you think the food you consume is produced and distributed? Why aren't you considering the emissions required to pour concrete and produce steel?

by acyou 2y ago

lblume 2y ago

> some people stand to gain a lot from renewable energy program investment Yes, everyone in fact.

rank0 2y ago
Hate to break it to you but the people producing and selling solar panels don’t give a fuck about the environment. Neither do you. I feel like Im ruining santa claus…
- lblume 2y ago
  > the people producing and selling solar panels don’t give a fuck about the environment They sure as hell are incentivized to at least make others do. An increased awareness for environmental issues is profitable. I would go further and think that genuine interest in the future of humanity is more plausible than the required cognitive dissonance. > Neither do you. Completely needless accusation.
  - rank0 2y ago
    Why on earth are solar panels seen as righteous? You’re so indoctrinated that it borders on worship. Go look into who makes them and how. Producing solar, batteries, wind farms EMITS carbon and has large environmental impact. The energy sector will sell you whatever… > > Neither do you. > Completely needless accusation. 99% of environmentalists are just posturing. I guess it’s possible you’re different, but just remember you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived.
    - lblume 2y ago
      The environmental impacts of these technologies are well documented and reported. However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike. Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale because we simply can't emit as much carbon as would be required for fossil power plants. Again, you can check the numbers for yourself. > you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived. That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy. While the Western industrial lifestyle is still unsustainable, I do think these small-scale changes are beneficial. Of course the ambient societal carbon emissions are incomparable to pre-Industrial timeframes, but that is widely known.
      - rank0 2y ago
        Thanks for the response! I am not anti-solar, and the technology absolutely has it's niche. It's just not suitable for base-load power generation. > However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels This is untrue but for the record, I'm referencing climate impact, not just emissions. Solar has great emissions compared to FF in VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Its obvious that solar only works intermittently, and only provides efficient power in places where we have lots of sun next to large demand (think population centers). Most of the worlds solar panels are produced in China, where they burn coal for the bulk of their industrial energy. Burning coal to produce panels, and placing them in non-sunny regions creates extra emissions, not less...frequently not even breaking even on the carbon cost of the initial production/distribution during the lifespan of the panel. > fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike Of course I don't actively dislike inanimate substance. This is what freaks me out about the cult-like support for solar. Without fossil fuels, we would lose access to food, shelter, medicine, infrastructure, etc. The way some people talk, I'm starting to think the renewable crowd believes it's "worth it." > Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale 1. We could use other forms of power generation...solar is not the only game in town. 2. The materials required for solar production are finite. It's unsustainable to extract/process all the materials required for such a feat, barring some sort of physics breakthrough in hyperconductivity. We literally do not have the materials OR the technology. > That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy. That's all well and good, but once you start taking flights, using infrastructure , electronics, ML workloads, developing software, etc, you've already beaten most others today and historically. How many african peasants worth of emissions do you think your lifestyle produces? How do you think the food you consume is produced and distributed? Why aren't you considering the emissions required to pour concrete and produce steel?