|
cat botherer posted:DAC is a pseudo-technology to fool the rubes. It's a complete pipe dream and doesn't make sense from basic physics. CCS from emission sources isn't complete bullshit but it is absolutely being pushed for cynical reasons. Again, you are confusing this whole situation by continuing to conflate these things. Says you. cat botherer posted:Again, you are confusing this whole situation by continuing to conflate these things. For the record, they are two different things but one is the component of another.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
cat botherer posted:DAC is a pseudo-technology to fool the rubes. It's a complete pipe dream and doesn't make sense from basic physics. CCS from emission sources isn't complete bullshit but it is absolutely being pushed for cynical reasons. Again, you are confusing this whole situation by continuing to conflate these things. You could use surplus nuclear for steam reforming natgas to hydrogen which would probably be cheaper than electrolysis. You just need to put the carbon somewhere... DAC makes little sense to me as long as there's literally anything else electricity can be used for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:DAC makes little sense to me as long as there's literally anything else electricity can be used for. I'd prefer it over bitcoin, even if it's using waste gases from extraction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Define meaningful. Who says it won't scale? Math and physics. There are currently about a dozen or so DAC plants operating around the globe. Combined, they remove about 9 thousand tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Globally, we emit 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Occidental Petroleum, one of the recipients of this government grant, claims to be developing a DAC facility that can pull 1 million tons from the air per year. So, even with that facility, which will supposedly be the largest in the world by far and cost God knows how much, you're talking about 0.00285% of our emissions. The net benefit will be much, much less if you account for all the CO2 that will be emitted upfront to construct the facility to begin with, and any exaggeration/embellishment/outright lies that slimy oil and gas companies are known for. You might be thinking, "OK, but isn't any CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere a good thing?" And the problem there is the massive opportunity cost in terms of time and R&D funds that are both lost while chasing this DAC unicorn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Math and physics. Good thing then that the majority of funding is spending is already put into emission reductions! Even Climeworks the DAC company recommends it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Good thing then that the majority of funding is spending is already put into emission reductions! Even Climeworks the DAC company recommends it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Good thing then that the majority of funding is spending is already put into emission reductions! Even Climeworks the DAC company recommends it! I don't even know what you're trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Yes, it would be even worse if they wasted more money on DAC. That is not a justification of this waste, though. Can you put forth some kind of coherent argument, or are you going to continue with this confused and ill-informed nonsense? We are at the point where net-zero is not nearly enough, and DAC can have a real role to play in pushing us lower still once we get there. Getting the R&D on it ahead of time would make sense as long as that context is acknowledged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Aramis posted:We are at the point where net-zero is not nearly enough, and DAC can have a real role to play in pushing us lower still once we get there. Getting the R&D on it ahead of time would make sense as long as that context is acknowledged. The harsh reality is this: Any CO2 we put in the atmosphere will stay there, until much longer timescale processes like carbonate rock weathering remove it. These pipe dreams of tech-ing our way out of the end of industrial civilization are exactly that. Large-scale DAC is a huge undertaking. You do not understand how huge it is. One of these billion-dollar plants is absolutely nothing. By the time "the tech is ready" we'll be living in a much degraded world and will have far less capacity than we do now. DAC is dumb as poo poo, and a distraction that's being pushed by all of the worst people. The people that benefit from inaction are the same people pushing this nonsense. That should really tell you something. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
Pretty sure plants already take CO2 from the atmosphere, and while obviously no amount of planting trees is going to undo industrialization (not to mention the scammy aspects of current green credits or whatever), investing all our resources and energy into very inefficiently recreating the natural CO2 cycle that we are also simultaneously in the process of destroying seems pretty dumb to me, conceptually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Pretty sure plants already take CO2 from the atmosphere, and while obviously no amount of planting trees is going to undo industrialization (not to mention the scammy aspects of current green credits or whatever), investing all our resources and energy into very inefficiently recreating the natural CO2 cycle that we are also simultaneously in the process of destroying seems pretty dumb to me, conceptually.  As much as tree-planting carbon offsets are currently a scam, photosynthesis is a far better proven method of CO2 absorption. However, preservation of current forest ecosystems and rehabilitation of degraded ones does not make money for the correct people. Therefore, it makes vastly more sense to plan to plan to create, in several decades, a vast global network of tens of thousands of CO2 removal facilities, all of which need an attached nuclear reactor to supply their power in a carbon free manner, unlike plants that primitively use the sun. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
I think allowing whale populations to recover would do more for carbon capture through fertilization of the ocean surface than those DAC plants ever will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Steel production doesn't need coke for one. Look up electric arc furnaces. You are also continuing to conflate direct air capture with carbon capture from emission sources, which makes your entire point incoherent and misleading. You need coke if you are making steel from ore pellets / fines, for primary steel making. Electric Arc furnaces are for secondary steel making, they are starting from scrap or direct reduced iron or pigs (from blast furnaces). You are incorrect steel production absolutely does need coke, but only primary production in a blast furnace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
But you’re right any DAC as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:
somewhat related to this, this is why I hate the fake meat stuff. like wasting a bunch of plant resources to make a new fake meat like substance has its own factory process, and it needs refrigeration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
Aramis posted:We are at the point where net-zero is not nearly enough, and DAC can have a real role to play in pushing us lower still once we get there. Getting the R&D on it ahead of time would make sense as long as that context is acknowledged. It is entirely accurate to say that scale require to remove Carbon Dioxide at scale is absolutely eye-watering insane so much that is nearly impossible and potentially a waste. The thing is if you look at earlier forecasts for any technology from personal computers, cell phones, automobiles, oil, etc. humanity has done insanely poor job at those forecasts blowing ourselves away. We thought we would hit peak oil... The idea of everyone having a personal computer? Everyone wanting or even being able to afford an iPhone? It's hard to find but there this a great article where carbon removal companies meet with VW executives a few years back for workshops to learn how the automobile has evolved into what is today. They'll apply the same concept to carbon removal but it's going to be interesting because we are in a world with cloud computing, drones and artificial intelligence. The same rules may not apply... Slow News Day posted:I don't even know what you're trying to say. I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of actual funding or dollars goes into emissions reductions. As it should, https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1645839348347314178?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
Pissing and moaning about a few billion on DAC seems just like the people that pissed and moaned at solar panel and wind farm research a few decades ago. And to be fair to those bemoaning solar in the 80's or whatever, solar panels and wind farms are still decades of research and investment from replacing dispatchable power for around the clock energy provision. I did think that it made more sense to use seawater for direct air capture due to the easier thermodynamics involved although fouling and filtration is a much bigger problem. Saying that, I did see some Chinese (?) research on methods that improve this aspect significantly. The other aspect is that sequestering is a bit naf for me at this stage. Capture and use (recycling airborne carbon, essentially) would be a much better win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Pretty sure plants already take CO2 from the atmosphere, and while obviously no amount of planting trees is going to undo industrialization (not to mention the scammy aspects of current green credits or whatever), investing all our resources and energy into very inefficiently recreating the natural CO2 cycle that we are also simultaneously in the process of destroying seems pretty dumb to me, conceptually. Photosynthesis is terribly inefficient though. There is research into improving the efficiency of plant photosynthesis, they're doing some interesting work with tobacco plants where they've increased biomass yields by up to 40% over normal, so in the future we could have some pretty cheap cigarettes! There's also different types of photosynthesis in plants, most plants are what is called C3 photosynthesis, like rice. Corn is C4 for instance and does well in areas with a lot of sunlight because of that. There is ongoing research into making wheat and rice into C4 plants which would drastically increase yields, which would reduce our need for agricultural area and feeding more people with less. C3 plants do better than C4 plants where there is less light such as northern latitudes however, so it's not a catch-all solution. But the methods employed on the tobacco plants could perhaps of use there, unknown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 09:57
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:
When Jeremy Corbyn made planting 2 billion trees part of his electoral manifesto, the right-wing British press mocked him because they didn't understand the logistics of it lol https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/is-labours-plan-to-plant-2-billion-trees-realistic PhazonLink posted:somewhat related to this, this is why I hate the fake meat stuff. It's okay to hate fake meat if you're vegan but if you aren't you're doing worse
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 12:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It is entirely accurate to say that scale require to remove Carbon Dioxide at scale is absolutely eye-watering insane so much that is nearly impossible and potentially a waste. The thing is if you look at earlier forecasts for any technology from personal computers, cell phones, automobiles, oil, etc. humanity has done insanely poor job at those forecasts blowing ourselves away. We thought we would hit peak oil... The idea of everyone having a personal computer? Everyone wanting or even being able to afford an iPhone? Electric Wrigglies posted:Pissing and moaning about a few billion on DAC seems just like the people that pissed and moaned at solar panel and wind farm research a few decades ago. And to be fair to those bemoaning solar in the 80's or whatever, solar panels and wind farms are still decades of research and investment from replacing dispatchable power for around the clock energy provision. You guys aren't listening. DAC's scalability — and therefore its potential total contribution to CO2 removal — has a fundamental limit that is imposed by physics. It simply doesn't make sense even at 100% efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You guys aren't listening. DAC's scalability — and therefore its potential total contribution to CO2 removal — has a fundamental limit that is imposed by physics. It simply doesn't make sense even at 100% efficiency. We are going to need carbon for this and that forevermore. DAC (was actually from the water but whatever) for fuel was proven to be roughly in line cost wise with bringing fuel aboard carriers by the USN but it just wasn't worth the effort otherwise (carriers are already massively complicated without adding an industrial fuel production facility aboard). I am not suggesting for one minute that it makes sense to burn coal to generate power to supply DAC facilities. But ditching excess renewable/nuclear energy at DAC for primary steel production, for plastics and bitumen, for aviation fuel, etc I can see being worthwhile to have a think about. The assumption is that the electricity used has vanishingly small cost (because you have to overbuild renewables massively to eliminate thermal dispatchable power and are left with a heap of otherwise curtailed power) and the main cost is the facility construction and maintenance. If you can make it work, then you can ban hydrocarbon extraction altogether and the use of carbon (from DAC sources) will actually help reduce carbon in the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You guys aren't listening. DAC's scalability — and therefore its potential total contribution to CO2 removal — has a fundamental limit that is imposed by physics. It simply doesn't make sense even at 100% efficiency. You are not listening either. It doesn't even take a few moments to determine there are multiple studies that gives ranges from 100kWh to 600kWh to extract a single of ton of carbon. The thing is these are are done in a lab and we need to test in the real world. The overwhelming majority of our efforts are put into emission reductions but there is a minor focus on carbon removal technologies. There's also the fact that if you went back a few a decades people where literally freaking the gently caress out because we'd hit peak oil while some nerds had some crazy idea to put a personal computer on everyone's desk. Guess what happened? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:You are not listening either. It doesn't even take a few moments to determine there are multiple studies that gives ranges from 100kWh to 600kWh to extract a single of ton of carbon. The thing is these are are done in a lab and we need to test in the real world. The overwhelming majority of our efforts are put into emission reductions. quote:There's also the fact that if you went back a few a decades people where literally freaking the gently caress out because we'd hit peak oil while some nerds had some crazy idea to put a personal computer on everyone's desk. Guess what happened?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:You can't tech your way out of thermodynamics. Yeah, this is basically it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Pissing and moaning about a few billion on DAC seems just like the people that pissed and moaned at solar panel and wind farm research a few decades ago. Both of those and batteries did look pretty goddamn bleak even twenty years ago. This is a pretty good point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
It isn't a good point because neither of those things were fundamentally limited by thermodynamics the way DAC is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
DAC will be used to sell carbon offsets for greenwashing. Actual effectiveness isn't necessary for that, just like the other carbon offsets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:DAC will be used to sell carbon offsets for greenwashing. Actual effectiveness isn't necessary for that, just like the other carbon offsets. Bar Ran Dun posted:Both of those and batteries did look pretty goddamn bleak even twenty years ago. This is a pretty good point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Grid-scale battery storage would be an environmental disaster if ever implemented on a wide scale. Good thing that won't ever happen. Oh it’s happening right now. It’s just not at the utilities, it is dispersed in industry. So many CATL battery banks, you have no idea. Just warehouses after warehouse full of the things being imported. The EV batteries are coming too, all the auto makers are importing large battery manufacturing plants. Not in the future, now as in several very large plants will be running this year, or in a few months. The IRA really accelerated it dramatically. It’s the biggest fastest change I’ve ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Oh it’s happening right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:How many gigawatt hours of grid storage do we have right now? How many gigawatt hours are consumed in the US per day? How do these numbers compare? I’m not sure those numbers are known yet. I don’t know if it’s even being tracked because it’s dispersed. It’s also not happening declared as batteries. It’s “batteries contained in equipment.” There are about ten UN numbers it’s happening under. Those UN numbers are also very wide categories so something like a cell phone or a toy is often under the same UN number as a large industrial battery back up power supply for a manufacturing plant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’m not sure those numbers are known yet. I don’t know if it’s even being tracked because it’s dispersed. It’s also not happening declared as batteries. It’s “batteries contained in equipment.” There are about ten UN numbers it’s happening under. Those UN numbers are also very wide categories so something like a cell phone or a toy is often under the same UN number as a large industrial battery back up power supply for a manufacturing plant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:In other words, it's not significant at the scale of our power grid. No incorrect quite significant but dispersed, on site rather than at the utility. Think of an industrial switchboard, that sort of that size /scale. Just assloads of the things. Edit and that’s where many of them are ending up. As cabinets in manufacturing plant switchboards. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:somewhat related to this, this is why I hate the fake meat stuff. So do you hate all processed food then? Or just this one? Do you slap packets of crisps/chips out of people's hands while biting into a raw potato? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:So do you hate all processed food then? Or just this one? Do you slap packets of crisps/chips out of people's hands while biting into a raw potato? Yes, this it is likely that PhazonLink carries raw potatoes around with him and slaps packets of chips out of peoples hands. This is what everyone does who questions the logic of extracting vegetable matter from a variety of different sources and extruding it into something that looks like meat. I'm not mad at fake meat, but its obvious to me that it is neither going to save the environment or provide any dramatic health improvements over real meat. Everything I have seen is by most measurements a kilo of fake meat is somewhat less destructive to the environment than a kilo of real meat. From a macronutrient level it has less saturated fat and a bit of fiber, but it remains a highly processed food sourced from ingredients around the world. Every product uses different ingredients, but most use some form of pea or soybean protein, wheat gluten, yeast extracts, beet juice and palm oil. As far as I am concerned, I would rather just eat peas, roasted beets, a roll and enjoy an occasionally real meat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Meat alternatives do emit significantly less GHG and use fewer resources. I don't think I've ever tried them and cooking without meat absolutely doesn't need them, but if it gets people to use less meat that is better for the environment. It's totally fair to say the processing involved in making them is no different than other food processing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
I'm not a fan on general principles, same as how I dont like electrification of cars being a priority when the end result is we still have those problems still but also a bunch more are worse now, but I'd be amazed if any fake meat companies managed to make their product even a tenth as destructive to make as meat is. Especially with beef I dont even think it would be possible if they set out explicitly to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'm not a fan on general principles, same as how I dont like electrification of cars being a priority when the end result is we still have those problems still but also a bunch more are worse now, but I'd be amazed if any fake meat companies managed to make their product even a tenth as destructive to make as meat is. Especially with beef I dont even think it would be possible if they set out explicitly to do so. Not sure I understand your point RE: electrification of cars being a priority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Not sure I understand your point RE: electrification of cars being a priority. Electric cars are still large emitters from manufacturing emissions to power generation, and the solution is still massively expanded public transportation. Electrification of cars is more misdirection than a solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Not sure I understand your point RE: electrification of cars being a priority. Making cars bigger and heavier isn't going to solve anything. It's being prioritized for basically no other reason than it's the easiest option on the table to look like action is being taken that nobody with the power to resist a change will resist, but the end result is that a bunch of stuff gets a lot worse (infrastructure damage, tire pollution, massively increased rates of non-drivers of all types in all contexts killed by drivers because they're faster and harder to control, etc) and personal automobiles are still given highest priority in these matters and we keep pumping oil out of the ground to support them since if taken to the fullest extent proposed, gas stations will be replaced with big diesel generators. It's not a manufacturing thing in my mind since any solution is going to involve some messy setup, but it does make it all the more important that that messy setup be put toward a much better end than we currently are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 20:27
|
|