6 ms·

carbon capture is billions of waste JUST LIKE the synfuels fiasco of the carter administration. There is NO scarcity of carbon as an input in industrial proces

carbon capture is billions of waste JUST LIKE the synfuels fiasco of the carter administration. There is NO scarcity of carbon as an input in industrial processes. so producing it through the MOST inefficient means , just like making FUEL OUT OF ETHANOL , is not just unprofitable and dumb, but environmentally destructive and stupid. capturing carbon is just making it more expensive to burn more carbon based fuel. capturing carbon means you are getting a lower EROI on the input energy. so you are actually winding up getting a more carbon intensive energy production as a result Albeit ----some of that carbon is going to be 'captured'. BUT this means the more carbon capture you achieve, the more carbon intensive your energy source!!!!! moral hazard anyone? the support for carbon capture amongst the greenies is one of the best examples of internal inconsistency and thoughtlessness amongst the greens. the total rejection of nuclear power on any and all terms, is the another. but let's get on with it. consider that all this 'captured carbon' will just be magically stored underground or somewhere else it won't escape for a 100 million years. MASSIVE VOLUMES in the atmosphere, cheaply and easily 'CAPTURED' and now of course, we assume it can all be stored perfectly. just like nuclear waste right!? no. that was sarcasm. c02 sequestration is the biggest joke of all. despite the nonexistence of effective sequestration methods ( which all COST ENERGY, and are thus more carbon intensive ) ------why not assume it already exist. ok what then, consider that within 100 years, any given earthquake let alone the basic erosion of nature will eventually lead to this carbon somehow coming back to the atmosphere one way or another. so now , the final piece of stupidity is introduced, let's take the carbon and use it for industrial production instead of sequestering it. yes , PERFECT!!!!! LET'S INVENT NEW THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST AND ARE UNPROFITEABLE EVEN IF THEY DID AND USE THE MOST EXPENSIVE THEORETICAL SOURCE OF INPUTS OF CARBON TO MAKE THEM. this is how sovietized economies reason, based on a goal centric output, rejecting ALL COMMON SENSE about investment to achieve the perfect recipe for optimal levels of destructive malinvestment. ----------------------- let me break it down for you liberals. the only effective way to sequester carbon is to plant trees, or otherwise encourage nature to run her own course (perhaps by stopping clearcutting trees to begin with) , because natures' course naturally consumes oxygen and sequesters carbon by way of...THE CARBON CYCLE!. seeding the ocean with iron for algea has not worked because our science is lacking in the area. we know SO LITTLE about the ocean, including to what extent it controls our atmosphere. YES, every year a whole new ton of research comes out about the oceans previously unknown influences on the atmosphere. why is this? because it is deep and huge. and so much of the ocean has not been subject to study without physical penetration in many different simultaneous locations ( like the worlds biggest scientific gang bang ) . Only now are we even beginning to understand ocean currents below the surface of the ocean ( where 99.999 percent of the ocean's water exists ) as for carbon, capturing it from smokestacks is just stupid. It is uneconomical let alone more carbon intensive. please by all means continue to pursue your interests in renewable energies. but stop being dumb. carbon capture for the sake of smoke stack 'cleansing' is a cruel joke.

IIAOPSW 10y ago
Maybe there's a coherent train of thought in here. But the random ALL CAPS and unnecessary politicization ("let me break it down for you liberals") just makes your entire comment come off as "THANKS OBAMA".
- teslaberry 10y ago
  you're right, i need to work on my writing. carbon capture is pointlessly destructive. there is little to no technology 'silver lining' to investing in carbon capture research that is not already being achieved through materials research in the adsorption applications field . this wastefullness is often disguised by many ridiculous claims just as was the synfeuls money spent in the 1970's. billions of dollars deliberately thrown into the toilet that could have been invested in something that was arguably useful instead of non-arguably useless. coal is dying and dead. and carbon capture will not cleanse the public relations, nor the actual competitiveness of goal on any market based, or environmentally based set of yardsticks. i'm not anti coal. i'm actually pro coal. solid fuels simply are not competitive with liquid, let alone gasseaous fuels. the only long term hope for coal is that synthetic gas (mosly CO) from coal can be integrated into a liqids or gasseous set of feuls burned in a combined heat recycling generation turbine. whatever fraction of the coal that can be gassified cheaply is the underlying basis for monetizing ANY profit to be made out of coal, on a competitive market financial basis with natural gas, and---on a competitive environmental basis ( though fracked gas in inherently cleaner than ANY coal on both an atmospheric and a surface impact basis) carbon capture is about as foolish an investment as is any research on hazing the atmosphere with sulfur particles. hell, there is research saying coal emissions -==being high in sulfur particles---actually lower the global temperature and are thus 'good'. from the environmental perspective, these are all fools arguments. you don't invest in technologies to create the perfect mop for cleaning up mud on a single specific surface where the mud is spewing out of . you either stop the mud from coming out, or you invest in cleaning up ALL the mud ---yes even environmentalists admit that particulate carbon, sulfur and n0x emissions are pollution that is significant , not in just a tiny part of the mud (co2). on an economic basis (where c02 emissions are completely and utterly benign on a market basis and have ZERO bearing on the matter) ------------there is absolutely zero value to industrial feed-stock c02 that is not produced on a competitive basis. it is literally just being dumped onto the market and its costs are born by whoever subsidizes its profitless production. and thus, talking about creating nanotubes of carbon is madness. the cost of carbon nanotube production could come down by 5 orders of magnitude and there still would be no reason to couple the idea of carbon capture with creating industrial carbon feedstocks for nanotube production because there's plenty of carbon feedstocks and they are 10,000 times cheaper than anything you may ever get out of a factory smokestack. maybe just read this. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide/2-co2-market https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating... the global demand for industrial c02 gas is not that big. and the theoretical surplus of supply is SO massive you have no clue. not in 200 years will we see a 'shortage' in industrial supply gas that will make a dent in MARKET prices. what central planners love to do in these situations is just ramp up the price with a massive tax , take money from the industry, and see what chaos ensues when you impose artificial scarcity.......

IIAOPSW 10y ago

Maybe there's a coherent train of thought in here. But the random ALL CAPS and unnecessary politicization ("let me break it down for you liberals") just makes your entire comment come off as "THANKS OBAMA".

teslaberry 10y ago
you're right, i need to work on my writing. carbon capture is pointlessly destructive. there is little to no technology 'silver lining' to investing in carbon capture research that is not already being achieved through materials research in the adsorption applications field . this wastefullness is often disguised by many ridiculous claims just as was the synfeuls money spent in the 1970's. billions of dollars deliberately thrown into the toilet that could have been invested in something that was arguably useful instead of non-arguably useless. coal is dying and dead. and carbon capture will not cleanse the public relations, nor the actual competitiveness of goal on any market based, or environmentally based set of yardsticks. i'm not anti coal. i'm actually pro coal. solid fuels simply are not competitive with liquid, let alone gasseaous fuels. the only long term hope for coal is that synthetic gas (mosly CO) from coal can be integrated into a liqids or gasseous set of feuls burned in a combined heat recycling generation turbine. whatever fraction of the coal that can be gassified cheaply is the underlying basis for monetizing ANY profit to be made out of coal, on a competitive market financial basis with natural gas, and---on a competitive environmental basis ( though fracked gas in inherently cleaner than ANY coal on both an atmospheric and a surface impact basis) carbon capture is about as foolish an investment as is any research on hazing the atmosphere with sulfur particles. hell, there is research saying coal emissions -==being high in sulfur particles---actually lower the global temperature and are thus 'good'. from the environmental perspective, these are all fools arguments. you don't invest in technologies to create the perfect mop for cleaning up mud on a single specific surface where the mud is spewing out of . you either stop the mud from coming out, or you invest in cleaning up ALL the mud ---yes even environmentalists admit that particulate carbon, sulfur and n0x emissions are pollution that is significant , not in just a tiny part of the mud (co2). on an economic basis (where c02 emissions are completely and utterly benign on a market basis and have ZERO bearing on the matter) ------------there is absolutely zero value to industrial feed-stock c02 that is not produced on a competitive basis. it is literally just being dumped onto the market and its costs are born by whoever subsidizes its profitless production. and thus, talking about creating nanotubes of carbon is madness. the cost of carbon nanotube production could come down by 5 orders of magnitude and there still would be no reason to couple the idea of carbon capture with creating industrial carbon feedstocks for nanotube production because there's plenty of carbon feedstocks and they are 10,000 times cheaper than anything you may ever get out of a factory smokestack. maybe just read this. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-captured-carbon-dioxide/2-co2-market https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/accelerating... the global demand for industrial c02 gas is not that big. and the theoretical surplus of supply is SO massive you have no clue. not in 200 years will we see a 'shortage' in industrial supply gas that will make a dent in MARKET prices. what central planners love to do in these situations is just ramp up the price with a massive tax , take money from the industry, and see what chaos ensues when you impose artificial scarcity.......