Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 10/4/2024 3:32 AM, D wrote:

  On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Mike Van Pelt wrote:

In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:

Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
taken into account or ever discussed.

>
My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
>
But ...
>
We are in a Catch 22.  Trying to run techological civilization
on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
is impossible.  To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
it is successfully compelled.
>
I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
as possible.  Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
taken off line.  Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
then* does the fossil go offline."
>
(Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
>
The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.

>
>
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists I know.
>
Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we accept that this was possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.
>
I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
>
Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time.  There is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
>
>
William Hyde

>
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.
>
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.
>
So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
>
>
William Hyde
>

 I think the key for that to succeed, is to think about where CO2 is used most. If those capture systems could then be used to feed processes requireing CO2, a nice business might start.
 I think Holcim has some project looking into that for concrete manufacturing, but I'm not sure.

The problem is that the CO2 capture system require stainless steel absorbers as CO2 is an acid gas.  That drives the cost of the CO2 adsorption plant to the same cost as the power generator.
Lynn