patrick.net

Trollhole says

In their opposition, they will rely on tactics that have been honed over the decades

Oxygen depletion of the atmosphere, a threat to all animal life

.Trollhole says

It was never about emissions, you see. It was always about fewer humans.

Mostly control.

Aaannnd....here we go:

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

Trollhole says

Aaannnd....here we go:

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

It's just money laundering. There is 0.004% CO2 in our atmosphere. What is the energy source going to be to capture that minute amount of CO2 out of our atmosphere and once you capture it, what the hell do you do with it?

richwicks says

what the hell do you do with it?

Try reading articles/subject matter before shooting your mouth off.

Trollhole says

richwicks says

what the hell do you do with it?

Try reading articles/subject matter before shooting your mouth off.

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

This is all fucking pointless.

Jesus, read a NONSENSE article about a BULLSHIT technology.

Here, I know, let's burn a couple tons of coal and natural gas, and maybe we can collect a few pounds of CO2 and shove it into the ground. BRILLIANT idea.

You know what you'd do if you really wanted to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? You'd find plants that need very little nutrients to grow, grow them, and then bury them. Make them into landfill. Sound like a stupid thing to do? Well, that will sequester the carbon for a while, but it's a stupid thing to do.

richwicks says

You know what you'd do if you really wanted to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? You'd find plants that need very little nutrients to grow, grow them, and then bury them.

Yes, like cut the grass, bag the clippings, and send to a landfill.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

You know what you'd do if you really wanted to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? You'd find plants that need very little nutrients to grow, grow them, and then bury them.

Yes, like cut the grass, bag the clippings, and send to a landfill.

The problem is you're throwing away nutrients.

richwicks says

The problem is you're throwing away nutrients.

We agree here. I presented a method of CO2 "extraction and sequestering" that is just as bad as the other mentioned methods. At least the grass method is solar powered.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

The problem is you're throwing away nutrients.

We agree here. I presented a method of CO2 "extraction and sequestering" that is just as bad as the other mentioned methods. At least the grass method is solar powered.

I don't think CO2 is a problem. In fact, it may be beneficial.

richwicks says

I don't think CO2 is a problem. In fact, it may be beneficial.

CO2 is beneficial at the minuscule amounts being added (the other pollution is not).

HeadSet says

richwicks says

I don't think CO2 is a problem. In fact, it may be beneficial.

CO2 is beneficial at the minuscule amounts being added (the other pollution is not).

The other pollution is primarily carbohydrates. Not good to inhale, but I bet is works as a fertilizer once it precipitates out of the air.

I've even hear that oil spills from burst pipelines case immense foliage growth. You could test that with say 10 potted plants. Label them, add a small amount of oil to 1/2 of them, and check results a month later.

Using USED engine oil is probably deadly to the plants, that's filled with a bunch of metals.

richwicks says

What is the energy source going to be to capture that minute amount of CO2 out of our atmosphere and once you capture it, what the hell do you do with it?

Trees. They run on solar.

richwicks says

The other pollution is primarily carbohydrates

??? Did you mean hydrocarbons from incomplete combustion? Even so, I was thinking of pollution like heavy metals from burning coal.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

The other pollution is primarily carbohydrates

??? Did you mean hydrocarbons from incomplete combustion? Even so, I was thinking of pollution like heavy metals from burning coal.

Yes, I did. It's just plant food. I know it's not great to inhale though.

richwicks says

In fact, it may be beneficial.

It is.

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 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.

Why do you think Forbes is a reliable source?

Here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2022/04/28/climate-change-could-spark-future-pandemics-study-finds/

here, you want something MORE silly?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/06/01/dogs-detect-positive-covid-infections-better-than-antigen-tests-study-suggests/

As if reading Forbes is informational. They don't know what the fuck they are talking about. It's just another propaganda source, like they ALL are.

It's pretty obvious that you're not going to be collecting CO2 without making it. You need energy. Something TOTALLY ignored. You know how they do this on a nuclear sub or ISS? Of course you don't. You feed air into a liquid called monoethanolamine (MEA) that is atomized into a mist which absorbs CO2 (of which it's all of 0.04% of the atmosphere!!!! or 400 parts per million!!), it's then HEATED to bubble out the CO2, which is collected, and then expelled out of the sub or the ISS, then the MEA is cooled and the cycle repeats.

Does Forbes discuss that? No it's just this magical device that is powered by rainbows and love to absorb CO2 then compress it... No energy needed to do that either I'm certain!

Never get technical information from a propaganda source. These reporters don't know the FIRST thing about what they write about. It's a PR piece for some bullshit waste of money project that will never come to pass, but WILL be funded.

It's not viable, journalists are incompetent.

Here's another favorite from the "science" division:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/miguelhelft/2017/11/15/meet-zero-mass-water-whose-solar-panels-pull-drinking-water-from-the-air/

Look, they invented the dehumidifier! What genius!

https://www.source.co/

I DARE you to drink what it produces. Just imagine all that smog, pollen, germs, soot. Mmmm-mmm.

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.