The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies.
Or to put that in plainer english: We need to convert our existing CO2 emitting power generation technology to CO2 neutral technology. Attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive.
Or to use the more common phrase: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. .
No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.
No, not a jot of difference - at least to the outcomes of this conversation.
To conclude then:
If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical.
So your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary is false.
To convert CO2 to fuel (i.e de-oxidise it by breaking the C-O bonds) requires (in a perfect world), the same energy as was released when those bonds were created. there's nothing magical about it - the energy from burning (oxidising) fossil fuels comes from the point where that bond C->O is created. That's what burning means.
This means to power your machine you need a power source of at least the same size as the power sources that created the CO2 that goes in.
If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
If you power your machine with fossil fuel more CO2 will be emitted powering your machine than it can convert. The end result is CO2 positive, and you've really achieved nothing. In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
Your assertion is false, even before we consider it's likely ROI.
What are you talking about? We are still talking about ROI, just one aspect of it. First you will prove your perpetual motion machine works, then you will prove that such a venture has positive ROI. Failure to do both = you fail.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
No. You claimed some particular event to be impossible. It is on you to prove it is impossible.
Answer the following questions:
1. Do leprechauns exist?
2. Will leprechauns exist in the future?
The null hypothesis is that everything is possible at some point in the future, unless proven impossible. You fail logic 101.
3. Will leprechauns exist in the future?
4. Will we, in the future, be able to create what is defined as a perpetual motion machine - a machine that defies either the first or second law of thermodynamics?
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.
I am still waiting for a proof , or even an argument supporting it, from you about the impossibility of such a future point.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
I have already pointed out some of the circumstances which would make such a point materialize. There are more.
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics. So "the circumstances which would make such a point materialize" would be in a land only reachable by the magical faraway tree.
When we are discussing a future point where CO2 neutral technologies aren't necessary, ROI doesn't matter.
There is no such future point.
Unless you envision doing nothing and civilisation collapsing to the point that mass transportation/power generation are fruitless. The ROI on that scenario is not very good.
Incorrect. Apart from being moronic in general to have not considered how much it would cost to mitigate warming (versus the costs of living with it), you've deliberately engaged yourself in a conversation about that very subject. You are discussing it RIGHT NOW.
(no response)
Glad you agree.
You need to demonstrate the ROI of your proposal ("reverse conversion") to mitigate climate change by direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Until you can demonstrate how this plan is economically feasible/better value WITHOUT moving away from fossil fuel based generation, then your assertion is unproven.
It's not a proposal,
So you don't think we should do it?
it's an acceptance of its possibility.
You don't think we should do it, and can't describe a circumstance in which we would. You can't detail how this 'air vacuum' plan would work unless we had already converted to clean energy (which negates the point you are clumsily trying to make). And you can't describe how the ROI is positive. You think it might 'possibly' work (i.e. result in positive ROI). Care to put a number on that possibility? 5%? 7.5% ?
I'm going to go ahead and call it 0%. Mostly because of the 'laws of thermodynamics' thing.
Whether or not I believe anything about the ROI of mitigation is irrelevant.
Incorrect. Apart from being moronic in general to have not considered how much it would cost to mitigate warming (versus the costs of living with it), you've deliberately engaged yourself in a conversation about that very subject. You are discussing it RIGHT NOW.
Your statement about there never coming a point when CO2 neutral technologies will be unnecessary is incorrect either way. Because either way reverse conversion is always a possibility.
Incorrect.
You need to demonstrate the ROI of your proposal ("reverse conversion") to mitigate climate change by direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Until you can demonstrate how this plan is economically feasible/better value WITHOUT moving away from fossil fuel based generation, then your assertion is unproven.
I take it then, that you believe that the ROI on negating cliamte change is actually negative? That we should therefore continue not mitigating against warming (thus continue to use our coal fired power plants).
You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.
Please provide a justification for you stated view that the ROI on climate change negation is actually negative (thus contradicting Stern et. al.).
The context in which I made the comment was in a discussion about the ROI. I take it then, that you believe that the ROI on negating cliamte change is actually negative? That we should therefore continue not mitigating against warming (thus continue to use our coal fired power plants).
Please provide a justification for you stated view that the ROI on climate change negation is actually negative (thus contradicting Stern et. al.).
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case
Nice attempt at a face saving lie.
Your comment implies that I care one way or the other what you think. Wrong again. Produce some evidence for your assertions, or don't make them in the first place.
You haven't distinguished your argument from bill
My argument was about pointing out your false statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary". Nothing about ROI.
A remark made in reply to assertions about the ROI on climate change. You, the interjecter, don't get to choose the topic of a conversation which is already underway. And you don't get to say it is false until you prove it is false. Which you haven't done. Your failure to make a coherent argument is not my problem.
It seems to me that you joined the conversation (about the ROI of climate change mitigation) without realising what the conversation was about, or somehow you imagined you could take my remark out of context and I would simply accept that. If the first: not my problem. If the second: bad luck. Hard cheese. Post on topic or don't post at all.
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
This is exactly what I was referring to. I'd never heard of the Artemis Project until you mentioned it. I suspect that if go out onto the street and asked 10 people about the artemis project, none of them will have heard of it either. The project failed. You can't sell advertising and media rights if no-one has heard of your project or is interested in it. The people behind that project imagined that their enthusiasm for it was infectious. They imagined that they could build a habitat on the moon, and people would simply turn up. But they were wrong. Ultimately because they misunderstood the level of public support and enthusiasm for such a venture.
Oh, are you too dumb to figure out the difference between bill_mcgonigle - 4333 ; and bingoUV - 1066850 ?
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case. You haven't distinguished your argument from bill's and in this context, that is all that matters. The topic at hand is ROI on mitigating climate change. Your remarks on the topic are cryptic to say the least - but that is your problem, not mine. If you can't describe your point of view in sufficient detail to allow it to be distinguished from the OP's how is that my concern?
Bush (actually Cheney/Rumsfeld) was responsible for 100-160 thousand deaths. That's the full cream. If you can indicate a comparable death count for Obama I might accept your statement.
Ah. So you just spent several days engaged in a conversation about the ROI on climate change mitigation, a conversation in which you were asked, repeatedly, to detail how your comments related to the subject at hand, and you don't actually have a view on the ROI of climate change mitigation.
I see. And is there a switch or checkbox or something that we click to make this venture profitable? I'm no expert, but I understand that the general nature of profitable ventures is that produce something that has implicit value to another party, who then exchange for something of intrinsic or implied value.
How do you think North America got populated* ?
Well, at the time there was a land bridge with Asia and humans followed the game from one continent to the other. By all reports, Mars is lacking in game - large or small. And there is also the land bridge issue. Maybe these things aren't as analogous as you assumed?
*Well, there is making it a prison planet, and sending everyone who gets a felony. I am sure some would love doing that, as long as they didn't have to go.
Well yes, you could force people to go. But then there is the cost of justifying the millions of dollars per person needed to transport them there, plus the cost of freighting provisions. Such a prison would be more of a punishment for us (the people who pay for it) then the prisoners themselves.
That's true - although I fail to see how that relates in the present case. TFS certainly implies that the module could be used for a lunar habitat (without detailing why a lunar habitat would be required). TFA alludes to it, but also describes a similar usage, where module supports a number of humans visiting an asteroid. No reason given there, or anywhere else, for why we would send humans to visit an asteroid.
If you are aware of such a reason feel free to offer it up.
Slashdot Mirror
The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies.
Or to put that in plainer english: We need to convert our existing CO2 emitting power generation technology to CO2 neutral technology. Attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive.
Or to use the more common phrase: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. .
Agreed.
No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.
Assertion falsified - see discussion here
To conclude then:
If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical.
So your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary is false.
To convert CO2 to fuel (i.e de-oxidise it by breaking the C-O bonds) requires (in a perfect world), the same energy as was released when those bonds were created. there's nothing magical about it - the energy from burning (oxidising) fossil fuels comes from the point where that bond C->O is created. That's what burning means.
This means to power your machine you need a power source of at least the same size as the power sources that created the CO2 that goes in.
If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
If you power your machine with fossil fuel more CO2 will be emitted powering your machine than it can convert. The end result is CO2 positive, and you've really achieved nothing. In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.
Your assertion is false, even before we consider it's likely ROI.
This energy source is fossil fuel based (y/n)
What energy source supplies energy to power the machine that converts CO2 into fuel?
What energy source supplies energy to power the machine that converts CO2 into fuel?
No, the "no energy be input " is your hallucination.
Uh huh. So: what power source supplies the energy needed by the machine to convert CO2 into fuel?
You are just too stupid to see what is going on.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
No. You claimed some particular event to be impossible. It is on you to prove it is impossible.
Answer the following questions:
1. Do leprechauns exist?
2. Will leprechauns exist in the future?
The null hypothesis is that everything is possible at some point in the future, unless proven impossible. You fail logic 101.
3. Will leprechauns exist in the future?
4. Will we, in the future, be able to create what is defined as a perpetual motion machine - a machine that defies either the first or second law of thermodynamics?
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.
No
You said that your machine creates fuel and doesn't require the equivalent energy be input to do so.. Your machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.
. I told you so and you didn't contradict me = you admitted it.
I am still waiting for a proof , or even an argument supporting it, from you about the impossibility of such a future point.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
I have already pointed out some of the circumstances which would make such a point materialize. There are more.
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics. So "the circumstances which would make such a point materialize" would be in a land only reachable by the magical faraway tree.
When we are discussing a future point where CO2 neutral technologies aren't necessary, ROI doesn't matter.
There is no such future point.
Unless you envision doing nothing and civilisation collapsing to the point that mass transportation/power generation are fruitless. The ROI on that scenario is not very good.
Incorrect. Apart from being moronic in general to have not considered how much it would cost to mitigate warming (versus the costs of living with it), you've deliberately engaged yourself in a conversation about that very subject. You are discussing it RIGHT NOW.
(no response)
Glad you agree.
You need to demonstrate the ROI of your proposal ("reverse conversion") to mitigate climate change by direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Until you can demonstrate how this plan is economically feasible/better value WITHOUT moving away from fossil fuel based generation, then your assertion is unproven.
It's not a proposal,
So you don't think we should do it?
it's an acceptance of its possibility.
You don't think we should do it, and can't describe a circumstance in which we would. You can't detail how this 'air vacuum' plan would work unless we had already converted to clean energy (which negates the point you are clumsily trying to make). And you can't describe how the ROI is positive. You think it might 'possibly' work (i.e. result in positive ROI). Care to put a number on that possibility? 5%? 7.5% ?
I'm going to go ahead and call it 0%. Mostly because of the 'laws of thermodynamics' thing.
Hence ROI doesn't matter.
ROI always matters when we are discussing ROI.
Whether or not I believe anything about the ROI of mitigation is irrelevant.
Incorrect. Apart from being moronic in general to have not considered how much it would cost to mitigate warming (versus the costs of living with it), you've deliberately engaged yourself in a conversation about that very subject. You are discussing it RIGHT NOW.
Your statement about there never coming a point when CO2 neutral technologies will be unnecessary is incorrect either way. Because either way reverse conversion is always a possibility.
Incorrect.
You need to demonstrate the ROI of your proposal ("reverse conversion") to mitigate climate change by direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. Until you can demonstrate how this plan is economically feasible/better value WITHOUT moving away from fossil fuel based generation, then your assertion is unproven.
I take it then, that you believe that the ROI on negating cliamte change is actually negative? That we should therefore continue not mitigating against warming (thus continue to use our coal fired power plants).
You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.
Please provide a justification for you stated view that the ROI on climate change negation is actually negative (thus contradicting Stern et. al.).
Provide the required justification.
Please provide a justification for you stated view that the ROI on climate change negation is actually negative (thus contradicting Stern et. al.).
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case
Nice attempt at a face saving lie.
Your comment implies that I care one way or the other what you think. Wrong again. Produce some evidence for your assertions, or don't make them in the first place.
You haven't distinguished your argument from bill
My argument was about pointing out your false statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary". Nothing about ROI.
A remark made in reply to assertions about the ROI on climate change. You, the interjecter, don't get to choose the topic of a conversation which is already underway. And you don't get to say it is false until you prove it is false. Which you haven't done. Your failure to make a coherent argument is not my problem.
It seems to me that you joined the conversation (about the ROI of climate change mitigation) without realising what the conversation was about, or somehow you imagined you could take my remark out of context and I would simply accept that. If the first: not my problem. If the second: bad luck. Hard cheese. Post on topic or don't post at all.
This is the basic problem. Enthusiasts think "I want to go" and think that this translates to broad popular support. It doesn't. Nobody (except maybe the richest of the rich) can afford to fund their own expedition. These means that other potential astronauts need to rely on a support base to fund them. But where is this support base? Let's say you want to send 5 people. Round it off to 5 Billion. This means your mission needs to find 5 million people prepared to donate $1000 to send someone else to the moon.
15 or so years ago, I read about the Artemis Project. At the time, their funding model was to sell advertising and media rights. Their projected cost was about 5 billion USD. Seemed like the interest - at the time - was solid enough. Maybe their funding scheme would have worked, but before the team could actually ask for even seed money, they needed to show it was reasonably possible to succeed. (Supposedly, a major issue was contracting launch services.)
This is exactly what I was referring to. I'd never heard of the Artemis Project until you mentioned it. I suspect that if go out onto the street and asked 10 people about the artemis project, none of them will have heard of it either. The project failed. You can't sell advertising and media rights if no-one has heard of your project or is interested in it. The people behind that project imagined that their enthusiasm for it was infectious. They imagined that they could build a habitat on the moon, and people would simply turn up. But they were wrong. Ultimately because they misunderstood the level of public support and enthusiasm for such a venture.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Oh, are you too dumb to figure out the difference between bill_mcgonigle - 4333 ; and bingoUV - 1066850 ?
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case. You haven't distinguished your argument from bill's and in this context, that is all that matters. The topic at hand is ROI on mitigating climate change. Your remarks on the topic are cryptic to say the least - but that is your problem, not mine. If you can't describe your point of view in sufficient detail to allow it to be distinguished from the OP's how is that my concern?
Bush (actually Cheney/Rumsfeld) was responsible for 100-160 thousand deaths. That's the full cream. If you can indicate a comparable death count for Obama I might accept your statement.
And you think I'm an idiot?
Make it profitable, and they will go.
I see. And is there a switch or checkbox or something that we click to make this venture profitable? I'm no expert, but I understand that the general nature of profitable ventures is that produce something that has implicit value to another party, who then exchange for something of intrinsic or implied value.
How do you think North America got populated* ?
Well, at the time there was a land bridge with Asia and humans followed the game from one continent to the other. By all reports, Mars is lacking in game - large or small. And there is also the land bridge issue. Maybe these things aren't as analogous as you assumed?
*Well, there is making it a prison planet, and sending everyone who gets a felony. I am sure some would love doing that, as long as they didn't have to go.
Well yes, you could force people to go. But then there is the cost of justifying the millions of dollars per person needed to transport them there, plus the cost of freighting provisions. Such a prison would be more of a punishment for us (the people who pay for it) then the prisoners themselves.
If you are aware of such a reason feel free to offer it up.