gromike
10 kW
Believe whatever you want, but the science is certain.
How to power ourselves into the next ice age while using carbon dioxide and plastics as fuel.
- Thread starter e-beach
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
But CO2 is the prime motivation to source “alternative” energy sources.
If there is not a clear and true understanding of the CO2 situation, the whole rationale for alternatives is weakened.
Hillhater
100 TW
That is just the point,…the “science” is not at all certain or proven .
….what you are subscribing to is belief in a “theory” that FF CO2 is causing climate change.
offGridDownUnder
10 kW
It's being absorbed into the oceans. Again, you have not done any unbiased research, and you could have.
Gromike;
Science is the search for truth, not the truth. Science is willing to change if new evidence comes out. That's what defines it.
Indisputable truth is the realm of religion!
You're on the wrong forum if you think weakening the case for alternative energy by arguing about CO2 is more important than allowing others to discuss prospective solutions. That's intentionally disruptive.
I'm not here to shut someone down for dissenting against the common opinion. Sometimes you have good points. Educated dissent is good. How you go about it is a problem.
The people who disagree with you also can't resist taking the bait. Now it's a multi person problem. Every time.
And then people interested in the actual topic tend to clear out.... and we've ruined another thread for everyone else.
I'm pretty tired of it, dude.
Science is the search for truth, not the truth. Science is willing to change if new evidence comes out. That's what defines it.
Indisputable truth is the realm of religion!
You're on the wrong forum if you think weakening the case for alternative energy by arguing about CO2 is more important than allowing others to discuss prospective solutions. That's intentionally disruptive.
I'm not here to shut someone down for dissenting against the common opinion. Sometimes you have good points. Educated dissent is good. How you go about it is a problem.
The people who disagree with you also can't resist taking the bait. Now it's a multi person problem. Every time.
And then people interested in the actual topic tend to clear out.... and we've ruined another thread for everyone else.
I'm pretty tired of it, dude.
NB that methane, mostly from poop and farts, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas and 28 times more potent than CO2.
I think it was Carl Sagan that (tongue in cheek) blamed Bovine Flatulence for climate change and suggested the eradication of cows!
I think it was Carl Sagan that (tongue in cheek) blamed Bovine Flatulence for climate change and suggested the eradication of cows!
While we're veering so far off anyway, this video shows some interesting technologies:
marvin78
10 kW
If the rest of the world is a fuhrerversteher, I would gladly be the 'enviro-nazi'. In more then one way.
Old invention, just made a little bit less theoretical.
edit: actually this is more intricate. CO2 absorption from the atmosphere is long possible already, and I think I already knew C02 could be used in alternative fuels but this is the first time I see the whole process being implemented in a non theoretical manner.
I wouldn't throw plastic bottles in the same leage. We could already recycle them, and since we will need packing materials in the future I think optimizing this recyclement process is more likely then completely phasing them out. Even if microplastics have already been found to be present inside brain tissue from younger people ( compared to old people, when there were less microplastics in the environment ).
I do agree that a certain 'negative nancy' should be barred from spewing unscientific nonsense in these threads, there is something with people who don't believe in the scientific method but who do feel they have something to contribute ( their opinions, backed up with .... something to wipe it with? ). Imho, when someone denies the scientific approach in one post, dimishes peer review processes and then in the next page goes on to make claims like 'but it's not proven' 'we don't know' ect, is deminishing the value of any discussion, because it doesn't allow one. Mr. contrarian will distrupt anything, make claims and then 'backs them up' with some 'reasoning', but when confronted with peer review research papers he will stick his fingers in his ears and go 'lalalala can't hear you'. That's what is happening there, and you can not blame others for that behavior.
I even don't think 'taking the baith' is a bad thing. I think the people who are 'taking the baith' are doing the forum a service in preventing the appearance of legitimacy for certain statements.
But I might not be impartial
And I do agree that contrarians can be a good thing. But only if they can offer alternatives, and are capable of offering rebutals when confronted with data they dispute. Rebutals which have more then 'I believe' 'I think'.
Last edited:
marvin78
10 kW
The reason I said this is 'old tech' ->
en.wikipedia.org
I seen video's from South America, that site captured CO2 from the atmosphere to make fuel. That video was sponsored by Porsche I think. What I remember the most vidid about it though, is the discussion in the comment section where 'gasheads' were trying to argue this would save their ICE's. It would not.
newsroom.porsche.com
EV's are the future. But alternative fuels will always be needed for places where electricity makes no sense ( very remote locations for instance where laying powerlines would be prohibitive ). And, I hope, for racing.
Because I might be a 'green guy' I can't stand watching Formula-e. Heck, I still miss the 2005 V10 with their 20.000rpm scream <3
edit: and I btw concur that this is still not a solution, as it won't lower co2 levels if we capture it and then burn it again. It would stop the increase, but we're already at a too high level ( for our current temperature/climate ).
edit2: some related humor, might increase the mood
Methanol economy - Wikipedia
I seen video's from South America, that site captured CO2 from the atmosphere to make fuel. That video was sponsored by Porsche I think. What I remember the most vidid about it though, is the discussion in the comment section where 'gasheads' were trying to argue this would save their ICE's. It would not.
Fighting climate change with important new technology: CO₂ extraction from the atmosphere via direct air capture (DAC)
Porsche views direct air capture (DAC) as an important new technology, which is on the threshold of mass production: by extracting large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere in an environmentally friendly manner, this technology can play a significant role in combating climate...
EV's are the future. But alternative fuels will always be needed for places where electricity makes no sense ( very remote locations for instance where laying powerlines would be prohibitive ). And, I hope, for racing.
Because I might be a 'green guy' I can't stand watching Formula-e. Heck, I still miss the 2005 V10 with their 20.000rpm scream <3
edit: and I btw concur that this is still not a solution, as it won't lower co2 levels if we capture it and then burn it again. It would stop the increase, but we're already at a too high level ( for our current temperature/climate ).
edit2: some related humor, might increase the mood
Last edited:
Similar threads
