4 ms·

Yet more costly and injurious to extract.

defrost 1y ago
That's highly variable - a significantly large volume of coal mined globally is via bucket-wheel excavators / mobile strip mining machines. That's overburden removal followed by near surface bed extraction with machines - no underground mining, underground being the mining domain that sees high injury and death rates. Regardless, fuel from oil or fuel from coal is still fuel from dead and buried organics, from resurfaced long buried carbon products, and still introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere which is counter productive toward any goal of reducing the insulation factor of the atmosphere.
- fpoling 1y ago
  Long term if people would really like to do something with CO2 emissions then CO2 captured from atmosphere can be used for chemical processes instead of coal/oil.
  - defrost 1y ago
    Got a link to a Technical Economical Feasibility Report on this? As in, what can practically be achieved in the real world at large within the next 25 years that can be immediately funded with a forward capital loan to break ground on a plant within 12 to 18 months and start operating within five years? How does actual atmospheric carbon capture scale out within a useful time frame?
    - kragen 1y ago
      We've taken 150 years to emit all this carbon. Why do you think that a solution that takes more than 5 years isn't practical? I don't think the real world is actually where you're living.
      - defrost 1y ago
        > Why do you think that a solution that takes more than 5 years isn't practical? A better question would be why do you think that is what I said or implied? I'm well aware that in the future we will all be flying jet-ski's and teleporting to Mars, today I'm more interested in near and mid term policy, for one of many examples the recent CSIRO cost and benefits report on nuclear vs renewable strategies in Australia (what did that conclude, and will it swap policy decisions). Given you've apparently taken the mantle of one who lives in the real world rather than the dull fantasy world I inhabit perhaps you could expand on the existing abilities and plans for carbon storage and fuel from air and contrast the achievable volumes within time frames that matter against the current and projected volumes of carbon emissions. We're mostly all looking for a path forward in my neighborhood, a little less interested in wishful thinking about distant futures, so any pragmatic detail you can provide about next steps would be constructive. > I don't think the real world is actually where you're living. Cheap swipe kragen, I've previously thought you could do better.
        kragen 1y ago
        Hmm, you're right about the tone. I'm sorry about that.
  - elzbardico 1y ago
    CO2 is an incredible stable molecule. Carbon capture is a hoax under our current economics.

That's highly variable - a significantly large volume of coal mined globally is via bucket-wheel excavators / mobile strip mining machines. That's overburden removal followed by near surface bed extraction with machines - no underground mining, underground being the mining domain that sees high injury and death rates. Regardless, fuel from oil or fuel from coal is still fuel from dead and buried organics, from resurfaced long buried carbon products, and still introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere which is counter productive toward any goal of reducing the insulation factor of the atmosphere.

fpoling 1y ago
Long term if people would really like to do something with CO2 emissions then CO2 captured from atmosphere can be used for chemical processes instead of coal/oil.
- defrost 1y ago
  Got a link to a Technical Economical Feasibility Report on this? As in, what can practically be achieved in the real world at large within the next 25 years that can be immediately funded with a forward capital loan to break ground on a plant within 12 to 18 months and start operating within five years? How does actual atmospheric carbon capture scale out within a useful time frame?
  - kragen 1y ago
    We've taken 150 years to emit all this carbon. Why do you think that a solution that takes more than 5 years isn't practical? I don't think the real world is actually where you're living.
    - defrost 1y ago
      > Why do you think that a solution that takes more than 5 years isn't practical? A better question would be why do you think that is what I said or implied? I'm well aware that in the future we will all be flying jet-ski's and teleporting to Mars, today I'm more interested in near and mid term policy, for one of many examples the recent CSIRO cost and benefits report on nuclear vs renewable strategies in Australia (what did that conclude, and will it swap policy decisions). Given you've apparently taken the mantle of one who lives in the real world rather than the dull fantasy world I inhabit perhaps you could expand on the existing abilities and plans for carbon storage and fuel from air and contrast the achievable volumes within time frames that matter against the current and projected volumes of carbon emissions. We're mostly all looking for a path forward in my neighborhood, a little less interested in wishful thinking about distant futures, so any pragmatic detail you can provide about next steps would be constructive. > I don't think the real world is actually where you're living. Cheap swipe kragen, I've previously thought you could do better.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Hmm, you're right about the tone. I'm sorry about that.
- elzbardico 1y ago
  CO2 is an incredible stable molecule. Carbon capture is a hoax under our current economics.