Teahive wrote:Schneibster wrote:How's removing carbon from the atmosphere by turning it into gasoline or diesel, using sunlight, grab you?
I'm fairly optimistic about biofuel production (that does not significantly affect food prices). But it won't be a perceived need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that will keep it running. It will simply turn out to be cheaper than digging and drilling. Besides, fuel is not a carbon sink if you burn it with little delay.
How about a repository? How about a cycle, like nature does it? Instead of pretending we're not going to burn any, or it's not going to hurt anything if we do? I'm not real fond of games of "let's pretend." We're
going to burn it, and if we don't get to work it's
going to create global warming, probably to undesirable levels near or past the PETM, and billions will die. We can do it then, or die, or we can do it now and avoid all the deaths. The only question is how quickly we'll get to it. If any of the five (five!) potential technologies for removing carbon from the air and sequestering it as fuel, using solar energy, were pursued as The Bomb was pursued in WWII we'd be done in a few years and we'd never have to worry about it. These aren't questionable pursuits; they've produced algae that is filled with diesel instead of fats and sugars, and
E. Coli that crap gasoline, and tested one of the catalysts, a chemical one, titanium and something else unobjectionable, not poisonous, put it on a pedestal in your yard and gasoline condenses from it. No power; it uses sunlight. A little more comes out when it's sunny, a little less when it's not. You can put it in your car, for direct fuel savings, or sell it. The fourth one was a carbon nanotube catalyst, much the same idea as the other one. The fifth I can't recall off the top of my head. Any one of them would lead to immediate solutions for the investment of a measly ten million, much less a hundred million; fund all five of them for less than half a billion dollars. What are we waiting for?
Frankly we're waiting for the Republicans to stop having their temper tantrum because a black President got elected, the same thing as we're waiting for to do, wait for it, polywell fusion. If someone spent a hundred million on this, it would be possible to build a big enough one to confirm the seventh power scaling, correct? So what are we waiting for? Greedy people to stop worrying about their taxes?
Why are there any meshbacks or creationists or global warming deniers on here? To try to sabotage it? That's what your representatives are doing in Congress and you keep voting for them.
Teahive wrote:Similarly, I believe that electric cars will, within less than two decades, take over the majority of the market. But a possible reduction in CO2 emissions (depending on the grid) isn't high up on the list of reasons why.
That will only help if they don't generate the electricity with coal.
Now I'm not against nuclear, but it looks like it's got a really major image problem just at the moment. Maybe you forgot.
Teahive wrote:Schneibster wrote:Well, the consequences of doing nothing will be 2.5 to 3.5 billion deaths. How much does that cost? How about a city blown away with a nuclear weapon? How much is that worth? How about a 1000-year hurricane in New York? How much will that cost?
There is no sensible way of replying to this.
If the temperature rises 3C we will be growing wheat in Canada not the US.
Think about it.
Where do you think food comes from?
Do you think they're just making stuff up about the hurricanes getting stronger? Have you not been watching the disaster statistics? This, again, is an almanac exercise. See that big spike? That's us, now. Notice they only peripherally report Pacific hurricanes? Here's something to consider: when has Mexico had two hurricanes, one on each coast? Well, it happened just last week or so. You won't like the answer if you look it up.
When their people are having food riots do you suppose the Pakistani and Indian governments are going to be able to keep each side, convinced the other is lying and has plenty and is laughing and watching them die, will not have a nuclear exchange? The Pakistanis, by all evidence, will, whatever the Indians do. These people have hundreds of nuclear weapons each, mounted mostly on ballistic missiles. This won't be minor. It will have effects worldwide on the weather. And on the radiation count. And what's to hold them back? A half-billion starving people will invade the government and do it for them if they don't. "For the children," they'll cry. "Death to the unbelievers." "Allah Akhbar." That's the propaganda their government is feeding them. You can watch it for yourself: I read the Pak Daily Times at least once a week; I have been for about eight years. You will find out what teaparty government would be like if you do that.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
