Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: 3 Oct 2024 22:42:46 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <vdn6l6$fip$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me> <vdmtmu$3s32s$1@dont-email.me> <vdn1t8$3sog6$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="16163"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 2072

William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> 
>> All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
>
>Indeed they do.
>
>But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power 
>sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
>
>It's an unsolved problem and a hard one.  But we really need it, and 
>should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent funding.

I'm not sure it's a solvable problem.  My suspicion is that, like the 
emission control systems in 1970s cars, it's trying to solve the wrong
problem and that a newer and simpler approach needs to be found to 
prevent the problem in the first place.  I don't know what that approach
will be.  If I did, I would be rich.

>Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the expansion of 
>one highway in Toronto.
>
>If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts content, 
>while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and even undo some of 
>the damage we've already done.

The problem is that if you want to turn CO2 into solid carbon that can 
be readily stored, it takes as much energy as you got from burning the
carbon into CO2 in the first place.  Assuming 100% efficiency, which you
don't even come close to.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."