patrick.net

Patrick says

Trees. They run on solar.

No profit in planting trees.

zzyzzx says

No profit in planting trees.

Weyerhaeuser may have a different opinion.

richwicks says

Why do you think Forbes is a reliable source?

Who said anything about Forbes? Not me.

Jesus. You are completely off this thread.

Trollhole says

richwicks says

Why do you think Forbes is a reliable source?

Who said anything about Forbes? Not me.

Jesus. You are completely off this thread.

OOps, I don't know how I got that into my head.

Want me to find nonsense on https://www.eenews.net/ ? You know I can.

richwicks says

Want me to find nonsense on https://www.eenews.net/ ? You know I can.

?????

You need to see a doctor.

Trollhole says

richwicks says

Want me to find nonsense on https://www.eenews.net/ ? You know I can.

?????

You need to see a doctor.

You didn't write this?

Trollhole says

Aaannnd....here we go:

https://www.eenews.net/articles/down-your-throat-biden-pushes-ccs-on-polluted-places/

You're just pulling an article from some no-name website, and telling me that if I don't believe the bullshit printed in it, I'm an idiot.

Ever read Popular Mechanics? I used to love that magazine, but then I hit 12, and realized it was all fantastical bullshit.

Sequestering CO2 is basically compressing CO2 gas, and leaving it in a sealed off pocket deep in the earth. If that ever finds its way to the surface (and it will) and IF it escapes at a great rate, it's going to asphyxiate anything around it, if it leaks out slowly, shouldn't be a problem. There was a lake in India that had a great deal of absorbtion of CO2 (it's thought), and something upset it, causing all the CO2 to bubble out all at once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

Anyhow, there was a ton (well more like millions of tons) of CO2 released at the same time, over a 1000 people died, and 3000 cattle, and who knows what it did to wildlife. I bet the plants loved it.

You cannot sequester CO2 permanently, all you're doing is setting up future generations for a disaster. On top of that, the energy involved to sequester the CO2 just requires more energy, which produces more CO2, which wastes more energy.

These mother fuckers don't know step 1 to high school physics and they are making policy. It's terrifying in a way. I'm an engineer to solve problems, not to create fake solutions to real or fake problems. The engineers doing this shit know they are setting up a future disaster, they just don't give a shit.

What's the point of sequestering it? It's just a problem for future generations. Let the plants take care of it. They're practically starving for CO2 as it is. We're at 0.04%, and plants don't live (well most don't) at 0.02%. We are probably improving the planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, very likely we are - the world is getting greener and we know this from satellite pictures from the 1970's until today.

We know how much energy we've mined over the last 100 years, we could calculate how much CO2 we've produced, we could find out how much we've ACTUALLY added to the atmosphere, but we never do that. Why?

richwicks says

There was a lake in India that had a great deal of absorbtion of CO2 (it's thought), and something upset it, causing all the CO2 to bubble out all at once.

You spelled "Africa" wrong.

richwicks says

we could calculate how much CO2 we've produced, we could find out how much we've ACTUALLY added to the atmosphere, but we never do that. Why?

Because it is too small to measure.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

There was a lake in India that had a great deal of absorbtion of CO2 (it's thought), and something upset it, causing all the CO2 to bubble out all at once.

You spelled "Africa" wrong.

Hunh, you're totally right. I could have sworn it was in India but you're right, it's Africa, Cameroon.

It happened in 1986, I wouldn't be at all surprised if our "news" media just said it was India at the time. I was 15 at the time, before the Internet, and all I had were 3 television channels for "information" and a shit school.

I don't know about that. But then again, I don't know about that.

richwicks says

Hunh, you're totally right. I could have sworn it was in India but you're right, it's Africa, Cameroon.

I remember it because it came up as an engineering problem. The CO2 forms below the lake and over time the bubble rises and pops. CO2 is heavier than air, so the massive amount of CO2 displaces all the oxygen at ground level and suffocates everything in the vicinity. The problem is, how do we vent the gas or what other method can be done to prevent the mass suffocation? How do you disarm this bomb without setting it off?

HeadSet says

The problem is, how do we vent the gas or what other method can be done to prevent the mass suffocation? How do you disarm this bomb without setting it off?

You evacuate, and then purposely set it off would be my solution. It's not a great solution, still kills off all the cattle and wildlife, because you cannot evacuate them.

The problem is, how do you even detect a lake has this problem? I remember the reports of the time, at first it was a mystery, later it was determined it was CO2 - I think it was suspected to be a gas attack or a chemical plant failure of some sort at one point.

The Bhopal disaster had just happened 2 years prior.

Our media always sucked, looking back. I bet THEY confused the Bhopal and the Lake Nyos disasters.

richwicks says

You evacuate, and then purposely set it off would be my solution.

I am sure that was the first though of everyone before going into details. That and maybe a giant tube as a vent.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

You evacuate, and then purposely set it off would be my solution.

I am sure that was the first though of everyone before going into details. That and maybe a giant tube as a vent.

Vent it to where?

It would be the expense of the infrastructure.

You might want to just erect giant inflatable domes, huddle everybody into it, and set it off, or even small inflatable domes. They would have to contain enough oxygen to last until the CO2 clears.

I'd say - warn the inhabitants, and let nature take its course.

richwicks says

You're just pulling an article from some no-name website, and telling me that if I don't believe the bullshit printed in it, I'm an idiot.

No. You didn't even read it. That was obvious. Didn't stop you from shooting your mouth off, tho.

Trollhole says

richwicks says

You're just pulling an article from some no-name website, and telling me that if I don't believe the bullshit printed in it, I'm an idiot.

No. You didn't even read it. That was obvious. Didn't stop you from shooting your mouth off, tho.

I skimmed through it, there's little point in reading it seriously.

I'm an engineer. I have never seen in 30 years a "journalist" to talk about science or technology in any way that approached competency. I used to make fun of Rob Enderle through email directly to him, pointing out all his errors and lack of knowledge about subjects. He was a PR whore for Microsoft. Didn't know the first thing about how a computer worked. To him, Apple was hopeless, and Linux was just this inexplicably difficult system that only nerds were able to use.

SCO Caldera claimed that Linux developers had stolen code from System V so Caldera was asserting rights over ALL versions of the kernel, but they refused to identify the code in question, until idiots of the company posted a blurb of code where they obscured it by posting it in the font of Zapf-Dingbats. Well, that's not only a substitution cipher, it's a KNOWN one, so it was easy to reverse engineer to finally find out what code they were talking about.

It turned out to be memory management from the Kernighan and Ritchie book "The C Programming Language", where it's explicitly stated that the code examples in that are public domain. Subsequently, Richard Stallman wrote a program to reverse engineer the code into an Abstract Syntax Tree, and discovered that it was System V stealing code from Linux.

Rob Enderle gave a speech after that to the SCO company, as a kind of pep talk. He was on something when he was clearly to be shown to be entirely wrong. I asked him if he was high on cocaine to get through that speech.

There's no good tech journalists. I, Cringley was lying about having a PhD, and he was one of the BETTER ones.

The only information you'll find today is from people who leak information about products (I learned more about my OWN PROJECT on the XBox360 project than I learned from the company in tech blogs), and bloggers dismantling bullshit.

Let me give you an example:



There was a big scandal with that company, because 1/2 billion dollars of federal money was sunk into it. What's wrong with it? It should be obvious. I'm about to tell you in the next line. See if you can guess. Most engineers can't tell the problem, although they should.

You can see white. That means it's not capturing all possible photons. It was PIPES of solar panels. There's no advantage, it's more expensive to produce, and it can't possibly capture more energy than a flat panel can. Did anybody in the media point that out? I don't mind a layman missing this, but an engineer? They had hundreds of engineers working on this, and NONE of them noticed. If you took the solar panel, unrolled it, they would overlap. It couldn't possibly have more coverage, or even equivalent coverage as a standard flat panel.

Our media is bullshit, and our industry is filled with bullshit, scams, lies.

How are you going to capture CO2? We have the MOST EFFICIENT SYSTEMS NOW, on nuclear subs and the ISS, and they require energy to run. Even if you can send the CO2 to the sun or whatever, unless you're running the system off from nuclear power, or POSSIBLY solar power, it's producing more CO2 than it captures.

Don't trust our fucking media to talk about tech. They're full of shit. You're reading public relations to justify some WASTE.

This constant bullshit that CO2 is killing the planet, is simply not true. Our planet is greener (meaning it has more flora) than when I was born in 1971. We're, BIZARRELY I admit, improving the planet, by burning petroleum. We're freeing up CO2 for plants, and this might be detrimental to fauna, but we have a LONG way to go before we actually do damage. I'm in a room, that's not ventilated, that has a higher CO2 concentration than if I step outside, probably twice what it is outside, as far as I know, it doesn't affect me a bit.

richwicks says

I'm in a room, that's not ventilated, that has a higher CO2 concentration than if I step outside,

The bigger danger in a sealed room is running out of oxygen. CO2 is harmless in itself.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

I'm in a room, that's not ventilated, that has a higher CO2 concentration than if I step outside,

The bigger danger in a sealed room is running out of oxygen. CO2 is harmless in itself.

That's not quite true. I'm not going to bother to look it up, but you can get fatal doses of CO2 even with enough oxygen. IF memory serves, and it probably doesn't, it's only like 5-10% CO2 that can put you in lethargy then death.

Trollhole says

richwicks says

How the fuck are you supposed to sequester a gas for all of eternity?

This is all fucking pointless.

Again, you don't READ.

You just shoot your mouth off.

@Trollhole

I knew I'd find it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCnr0HwW28w

This basically explains from a physics point of view why it's pointless to try to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it. Basically, it boils down to the energy needed to do this.

With enough taxes anything is possible.

richwicks says

knew I'd find it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCnr0HwW28w

This basically explains from a physics point of view why it's pointless to try to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it. Basically, it boils down to the energy needed to do this.

Which is not what CCS is.

As we recently described in “It Was Never About Emissions,” many on the environmental left are in a state of absolute panic over the prospect of the successful development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), as this would theoretically allow for the continued use of fossil fuels without materially increasing carbon emissions. Under Al Jaber’s leadership, CCS is expected to play a prominent role in the COP28 agenda, and meanwhile, the energy industry is gearing up to spend untold billions commercializing the technology. These promising developments are why the propaganda around climate change is slowly undergoing a semantic shift from defining the problem as “emissions from fossil fuels” to “the burning of fossil fuels.”

To most of the general public, CCS would seem a good thing—a potential solution to the alleged problem that is threatening our literal extinction. Instead of welcoming this development, extreme elements of the environmental movement are pulling out all the stops to kill any discussion of the technology. Earlier this month, Reuters reported on a heated debate unfolding within the European Union as the bloc prepares its official policy position ahead of COP28:

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/cop-out

Trollhole says

Which is not what CCS is.

Look, if you want to believe that sequestering CO2 is either economically or technically feasible. go ahead. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Believe whatever stupid nonsense you like.

richwicks says

Look, if you want to believe that sequestering CO2 is either economically or technically feasible. go ahead. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Believe whatever stupid nonsense you like.

Learn to fucking R-E-A-D.

This isn't about pulling CO2 'from the atmosphere'. Never was.

But you didn't bother to even read what the hell this all about, attributed to.some other thing you saw a YouTube and insisted that your alternate reality is what the subject matter is here.

You do this quite a bit in other subjects. I don't know how you function in life.

Trollhole says

Learn to fucking R-E-A-D.

I don't engage in ad-hominem insults.

The crux of this entire, stupid thread, was that the article was bullshit. You can't sequester CO2 forever, you have to spend more energy to withdraw CO2 by burning fossil fuels than you take out of the atmosphere mechanically, and this is entirely impractical.

Trollhole says

But you didn't bother to even read what the hell this all about, attributed to.some other thing you saw a YouTube and insisted that your alternate reality is what the subject matter is here.

He's a PHd physicist that made a name for himself debunking bullshit projects that aren't designed to work, but are designed to invite capital, then fail. In short, he exposes scams.

I don't care. This is a waste of time to continue.

richwicks says

I don't engage in ad-hominem insults.

Telling you to do something you fucking are not doing is not engaging in ad-homonem insults.

richwicks says

than you take out of the atmosphere mechanically,

THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

If you fucking R-E-A-D what this is about, you would have realized that and not made such an ass out of yourself.

Again, I repeat: THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

This is about capturing CO2 generated at time of burning of fossil fuels and dealing with it BEFORE it ever gets emitted into the ATMO.

But you just go and shout your mouth off, w/o listening when ppl tell you are off topic.

You do this repeatedly on all kinds of topics, as I have pointed out numerous times.

Which is why I and others keep wondering just how you function in life. This must happen elsewhere in your life, like at work.

Trollhole says

If you fucking R-E-A-D what this is about, you would have realized that and not made such an ass out of yourself.

Or you could just tell what it supposedly is about instead of just telling me I don't know what is about, but strangely you have avoided this for days.

I conclude I understand exactly what it is about, namely the article is bullshit, you were taken in by it, and that I've embarrassed you by pointing that out, and ever since then You've been attacking me claiming I can't read, or I have to read harder

That about right?

Or are you just going to tell me to R-E-A-D harder again?

richwicks says

Or you could just tell what it supposedly is about instead of just telling me I don't know what is about, but strangely you have avoided this for days.

Or, you could just fucking R-E-A-D for yourself.

richwicks says

I conclude I understand exactly what it is about, namely the article is bullshit, you were taken in by it, and that I've embarrassed you by pointing that out, and ever since then You've been attacking me claiming I can't read, or I have to read harder

You STILL don't know you are talking about something else despite my telling you. Yet you still insist on your la-la land bullshit being valid. Amazing.

Again, I also make the observation that this recurring problem of yours must impact your life quite negatively. Esp at work.

Trollhole says

Or, you could just fucking R-E-A-D for yourself.

I'm making a mental note of ignoring you from this point forward. I don't actually place anybody on ignore.

Trollhole says

You STILL don't know you are talking about something else despite my telling you.

You've never told me and never will.

richwicks says

You've never told me and never will.

What the hell is this?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

Again, I repeat: THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

iwog2 says

richwicks says

You've never told me and never will.

What the hell is this?

THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

Again, I repeat: THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

It's not about the price of tea in China either

What IS it about? Fuck, so sick of talking to you

richwicks says

What IS it about?

Jesus Christ

iwog2 says

richwicks says

What IS it about?

Jesus Christ

In all of this, you haven't told me what it's about despite me asking you MULTIPLE times. You only tell me what it ISN'T about. Well, that's an INFINITE number of things.

There is no point in talking with you. This conversation is stupid, and I am a dumber person for interacting with you. This has been a complete waste of time and you might be the first person I ever place on ignore.

Bullshit.

You have some serious problems to work on.

Please do put me on ignore.

iwog2 says

You have some serious problems to work on.

Again, you can never tell me what it's about, only what it's NOT about. Is it about sugar? The price of tea in China? Eucalyptus leaves? Dandruff maybe? Body order? Whiskey? Artificial intelligence? Condoms?

YOU don't know.

What is the greenwashing about? I'll tell you, it's a way to launder money on wasteful projects that aren't designed to work. You can funnel billions of dollars to infrastructure projects that have NO HOPE of working, and pilfer millions off from the top while doing it - all state sponsored, with the taxpayer on the hook for it. It just has to sound "plausible" to the average dope, it doesn't have to be possible in the least.

Well, at least, that's part of it. That was Solyndra.

You cannot remove CO2 from the atmosphere even if there was a permanent sequestering solution because running the equipment to remove the CO2 from the air requires way too much fucking energy. They have engineers, they aren't stupid. I've seen these CO2 scrubbers as much as I have seen those stupid "water from air" technologies, you know, a dehumidifier which again requires enormous amounts of energy, and creates dirty filthy water with whatever else is condensed from the air, smog, smoke, pollen, bacteria, virsuses. MMMmmm MMM! That's good DRINKING water.

Periodically there is the phase of scams, that last for a little while, and then disappear. This is just one of them.

This doesn't have anything to do with Malthusian economics either. It's just an economic scam for the dummy children who are gluing their hands to roads, and throwing paint on paintings. You see, they don't know the first thing about physics, much less engineering. I do.

If they actually wanted to sequester CO2, they would grow the fastest growing plants by weight, then dry them out, burn them (you get energy from that), and then sequester that CO2. THAT would work, and it's cheap. But it doesn't require a lot of useless technology that's, supposedly, expensive and doesn't work. It doesn't allow much in the way of accounting fraud.

personal

iwog2 says

THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO.

Again, I repeat: THIS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING CO2 OUT OF THE ATMO

Then what is it about?

What is your point that you are trying to make? You can't seem to define it or explain it, despite, what? 2 weeks of you saying I need to read? Read what? To find what?

richwicks says

Then what is it about?

Why should I bother? You don't fucking READ.

iwog2 says

Why should I bother? You don't fucking READ.

I'm giving you a challenge that I know you can't meet.

You can't identify what it's about. I already have several times. You've suggested I get mental help. You're engaging in psychological projection.

richwicks says

I'm giving you a challenge that I know you can't meet.

What? Being able to fucking READ?

Oh yeah, since I originally posted that which you seem to not be able to read, I think it is safe to say I know what it is.