patrick.net

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.