3 ms·

Uhh... I disagree. Firstly, I don't see the circle in the following: - SolutionX puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to alternatives, and would be ex

Uhh... I disagree. Firstly, I don't see the circle in the following: - SolutionX puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to alternatives, and would be extremely uneconomic if we included in the cost/unitSolutionX the cost required to extract that CO2 from the atmosphere again. - Lots of CO2 in the atmosphere is bad -> SolutionX is either bad because it's uneconomic, or bad because it leads to lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. -> We shouldn't use SolutionX until some factors change such that SolutionX is better than alternatives, rather than worse. That's linear reasoning. If you want to change one of the underlying assumptions, namely that it's expensive to capture CO2 (and convert it back to carbon in this case... where at least the CO2 is coming from a concentrated point which reduces the cost of the process) then it's still linear reasoning with a slightly different result. For it to become circular there would have to be some step where we said "If we had SolutionX it would be cheap and easy to get CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into carbon, but we don't have SolutionX because the methods of getting CO2 from the atmosphere without SolutionX are expensive so SolutionX is dirty". That, interestingly, was used and is used as an argument against solar cells (e.g. solar cells made on power grids consume energy that may have a large CO2 loading). But it's easily revealed as bullshit through the use of EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested) accounting, and it's easy to show how 'SolutionX' (solar in this case) makes itself clean over time. How is that the case with this aluminium fuel cell concept? Any advances in energy generation and CO2 capture are probably going to happen independently of aluminium fuel cell production. There's certainly plenty of incentive for both already, the aluminium fuel cells won't create a new market. In conclusion, you're right that an aluminium based energy storage cycle would be more attractive if we had vast quantities of cheap and clean energy and low emission method of capturing CO2 and turning it into carbon. But.... 1. We have neither of those things 2. So for now an aluminium energy storage cycle is probably unattractive for most applications 3. If we did have both of those things it would totally change the economics of all sorts of other solutions, so you'd need to recalculate those as well before doing any comparisons between aluminium fuel cells and (e.g.) synthetic gasoline.

stcredzero 12y ago
Uhh... I disagree. Firstly, I don't see the circle in the following Having made this realization, then coming back to see this hunk of text written absent it sort of seals the deal as far as you being one of these particular kinds of circular thinkers. Namely, I 'll note that you're seemingly going on with the assumption that the Bosch process is the only way we could possibly get carbon out of the atmosphere on industrial scales. Left as an exercise.
- dojomouse 12y ago
  Not at all. I'm pointing out that whatever process you assume to get carbon out of the atmosphere, you should plug the inputs and outputs of that process into your calculation. Speaking of circular processes though... does this one look familiar? a) Angrily and dismissively state flawed views b) Have flaws in views pointed out c) goto a) Of course it's not purely circular as with every iteration there's more anger and less substance. But whatever.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Not at all. I'm pointing out that whatever process you assume to get carbon out of the atmosphere Yeah, you don't know what it is, do you? you should plug the inputs and outputs of that process into your calculation. It's powered by the sun and all of the carbon gets pulled out of the atmosphere by nanomachines. As the mass of carbon used for the reaction is only 1/10th the mass of aluminum produced, the mass of the carbon needed for the current world production of aluminum would constitute a fraction of a percent of the world's total current agricultural output. Some additional energy would be needed to carbonize the material, but this fuel could be drawn from the same feedstock, and still amount to a fraction of a percent of the world's agricultural output. a-c Not at all. My position is that there is a kind of commenter who thinks themselves "smart" for being able to recite facts about the current world, but can't see when they are applying the facts in ways that show they can't think a few steps ahead from first principles. Instead they rigidly apply the current situation and present it in arguments as if they had actually refuted something. Any escalation is merely due to the level of annoyance from repeatedly missed hints. The same sort of "logic" you present could be used in the Napoleonic era to "prove" that aluminum smelting would forever be impossible. (And you probably don't recognize the trap inherent in that one, or the other two traps above.)
    - dojomouse 12y ago
      Oh, of course. Nanomachines. So basically we should celebrate this contemporary not-really-an-innovation because some future speculative innovation might make it useful... and ignore the fact that it's much more likely that the future speculative innovation would make it entirely redundant. I love it that your future sees us pulling CO2 directly from the atmosphere with nanomachines, but still driving around in cars that run on blocks of aluminium taken from aluminium oxide through smelting. If I use your logic then I can just say "There's no issue with everyone running their cars on diesel". After all, one day we'll have nanomachines which can pull the soot, sulphur dioxide, CO2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and convert it all back into diesel again for a squeaky clean closed loop system running off the clean energy technology I have also implemented at massive scale. I don't know why we're even bothering with clean diesel. Or any pollution controls at all for that matter. Nanomachines will sort that right out! How're they coming along by the way? Oh, they're not ready? In the meantime then we should probably stick with assessing merit based on near term available technology, rather than saying "this thing is great, because I will solve all the things you don't like about it with my nanotech magic wand which I'm sure I'll have access to on a suitable timeframe".

stcredzero 12y ago

Uhh... I disagree. Firstly, I don't see the circle in the following Having made this realization, then coming back to see this hunk of text written absent it sort of seals the deal as far as you being one of these particular kinds of circular thinkers. Namely, I 'll note that you're seemingly going on with the assumption that the Bosch process is the only way we could possibly get carbon out of the atmosphere on industrial scales. Left as an exercise.

dojomouse 12y ago
Not at all. I'm pointing out that whatever process you assume to get carbon out of the atmosphere, you should plug the inputs and outputs of that process into your calculation. Speaking of circular processes though... does this one look familiar? a) Angrily and dismissively state flawed views b) Have flaws in views pointed out c) goto a) Of course it's not purely circular as with every iteration there's more anger and less substance. But whatever.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Not at all. I'm pointing out that whatever process you assume to get carbon out of the atmosphere Yeah, you don't know what it is, do you? you should plug the inputs and outputs of that process into your calculation. It's powered by the sun and all of the carbon gets pulled out of the atmosphere by nanomachines. As the mass of carbon used for the reaction is only 1/10th the mass of aluminum produced, the mass of the carbon needed for the current world production of aluminum would constitute a fraction of a percent of the world's total current agricultural output. Some additional energy would be needed to carbonize the material, but this fuel could be drawn from the same feedstock, and still amount to a fraction of a percent of the world's agricultural output. a-c Not at all. My position is that there is a kind of commenter who thinks themselves "smart" for being able to recite facts about the current world, but can't see when they are applying the facts in ways that show they can't think a few steps ahead from first principles. Instead they rigidly apply the current situation and present it in arguments as if they had actually refuted something. Any escalation is merely due to the level of annoyance from repeatedly missed hints. The same sort of "logic" you present could be used in the Napoleonic era to "prove" that aluminum smelting would forever be impossible. (And you probably don't recognize the trap inherent in that one, or the other two traps above.)
  - dojomouse 12y ago
    Oh, of course. Nanomachines. So basically we should celebrate this contemporary not-really-an-innovation because some future speculative innovation might make it useful... and ignore the fact that it's much more likely that the future speculative innovation would make it entirely redundant. I love it that your future sees us pulling CO2 directly from the atmosphere with nanomachines, but still driving around in cars that run on blocks of aluminium taken from aluminium oxide through smelting. If I use your logic then I can just say "There's no issue with everyone running their cars on diesel". After all, one day we'll have nanomachines which can pull the soot, sulphur dioxide, CO2 and water vapour from the atmosphere and convert it all back into diesel again for a squeaky clean closed loop system running off the clean energy technology I have also implemented at massive scale. I don't know why we're even bothering with clean diesel. Or any pollution controls at all for that matter. Nanomachines will sort that right out! How're they coming along by the way? Oh, they're not ready? In the meantime then we should probably stick with assessing merit based on near term available technology, rather than saying "this thing is great, because I will solve all the things you don't like about it with my nanotech magic wand which I'm sure I'll have access to on a suitable timeframe".