251–260 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe cars, but the weight of batteries is a problem for larger vehicles that need long range, like a bus, truck, or plane. For those hydrogen might be better.
Trams, trains, high speed rail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic is that you need to power the carbon extraction, and right now we use fossil fuels for power, so you wouldn’t be able to net reduce fossil fuels because you would be burning more than you extract. I think it’s naive though. There is a theoretical point at which it’s economical to just build excess renewable energy production and use the extra power to repair the climate.
The logic is that you need to power the carbon extraction, and right now we use fossil fuels for power, so you wouldn’t be able to net reduce fossil fuels because you would be burning more than you extract. Currently, we use a mix of hydrocarbon, hydroelectric, photovoltaic, wind and nuclear for power generation. Photovoltaic is quite economical for daylight and so using intermittent power for this process carbon cap…
And that’s ok, I think that such an investment could be profitable. It has plenty of positive externality effects too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Busses are such good vehicles for batteries, that for some routes it may even make sense to run them with super-capacitors, with chargers embedded in the road at stops. I would think busses are a very poor fit for batteries: their economics favours driving around for as long as possible (switching drivers in shifts). Any time spent charging is a waste. This is less favourable than a consumer car, which sits around…
> they only need to last as far as the next charging point. You had better hope that your bus doesn't get stuck in traffic on the way there, then.
I didn't say "assuming no traffic" or similar, because that would be silly.
You seem to be critiquing an incredibly flimsy straw man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trams, trains, high speed rail.
Call me when we have transpacific or transatlantic high speed rail, or when we have a route linking Europe to Asia or Africa that doesn't take the better part of two days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cars have finite lifetimes. You don't replace the ones on the road, you replace the ones we'll buy in the future. Apologies... I realize upon rereading what I wrote that it was all a little hyperbolic. My point is that renewable hydrocarbon fuels could extend the use of already manufactured cars in a way that saves energy on the supply end, much in the same way that thrift stores extend the lives of worn clothing a…
Those links all just say that there's Li in Afghanistan. Calling it a "conflict mineral" is a particular term of social justice that implies that its extraction is directly related to the exploitation of some local population, not just that there's a putative "conflict" nearby! You just seem to be using the term to argue that people near wars should be economic pariahs who we never trade with. That's harmful, not hel…
> The existence of this historical data suggests minerals may have been an underlining factor in the administration’s decision-making long before their official entanglement in the Afghan conflict. That would explain why, mere weeks after 9/11, and weeks before the official declaration of war, the Pentagon was already commissioning geologists to study caves throughout the country. ...
> ... The process began almost immediately. From 2004 to 2006, the USGS conducted airborne geophysical surveys of the country. This was supplemented by efforts between 2005 and 2007 to consolidate existing information about the deposits in tandem with the AGS. What they found shocked even seasoned geologists, with an internal Pentagon memo from 2007 referring to Afghanistan as a “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.” With peaked interest, experimental hyperspectral imaging surveys began in 2007. But by the time Bush’s tenure as president was over, those surveys were not yet complete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those links all just say that there's Li in Afghanistan. Calling it a "conflict mineral" is a particular term of social justice that implies that its extraction is directly related to the exploitation of some local population, not just that there's a putative "conflict" nearby! You just seem to be using the term to argue that people near wars should be economic pariahs who we never trade with. That's harmful, not hel…
That's a disingenuous reading of "all those links". In the very first link, for example, we have this quote: > The existence of this historical data suggests minerals may have been an underlining factor in the administration’s decision-making long before their official entanglement in the Afghan conflict. That would explain why, mere weeks after 9/11, and weeks before the official declaration of war, the Pentagon was…
But no, I'm not going to just take the word of some rando HN poster that somehow Lithium is to be avoided. Like I said: citation needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbon Engineering claims it will be between US$94 and $232. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/06/calgary-company-can-ca...
I have reviewed the original paper which from which the "$94-$232" estimate is obtained. You can find it here: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 My comments are as follows: 1. Obviously, this is not the current cost, but an estimate for a hypothetical future plant. 2. You can get wildly differing estimates through a series of small discrepancies in the assumptions. Comparing the provided estim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a disingenuous reading of "all those links". In the very first link, for example, we have this quote: > The existence of this historical data suggests minerals may have been an underlining factor in the administration’s decision-making long before their official entanglement in the Afghan conflict. That would explain why, mere weeks after 9/11, and weeks before the official declaration of war, the Pentagon was…
I'm sorry, where in that quote is someone making the case that we shouldn't trade in Lithium because it's bad for Afghanis? Again, you're making a very specific claim about social justice here and seem to be justifying it with bland pronouncements about Afghanistan. That doesn't fly. Find me someone credible demanding divestment from Afghani Lithium or battery boycotts or something and we'll talk. But no, I'm not goi…
I didn't say "lithium is to be avoided". I didn't make any prescriptions. My point is that lithium is not renewable and has been of key interest to geopolitical strategists for decades. And yes, it has motivated deadly conflicts. This is only going to heat up as time goes on.
I'm not advocating that anyone "avoid lithium". It's just not a renewable resource and people have fought over it. They will continue to fight over it.
(Afghanistan isn't the only place where people have fought over lithium: https://www.freetibet.org/lithium-tibet )
So, you spend a load of energy to reform atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbon fuel - and then just burn it again, turning it back into CO2 and putting it back into the atmosphere? The end state of the atmosphere is, at best, the same as the starting state, but you've expended a load more energy for nothing. If the energy to run this process isn't zero-carbon, then this is going to be a big net emitter when done at s…
You don't have to burn it. In theory governments or environmental groups could simple buy and store it.
So, you spend a load of energy to reform atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbon fuel - and then just burn it again, turning it back into CO2 and putting it back into the atmosphere? The end state of the atmosphere is, at best, the same as the starting state, but you've expended a load more energy for nothing. If the energy to run this process isn't zero-carbon, then this is going to be a big net emitter when done at s…
It depends on the alternative state of the universe. If the alternative state of the universe is you never drove the car, then you're right, this is not clearly better. If the alternative state of the universe is you drove the same car but burned gasoline that was drilled out of the ground, then this is much better.
We don't _just_ need to stop carbon emissions, we need to get the atmosphere back down to ~250ppm, from the current ~412ppm - we probably can't afford to wait ~two centuries for it to weather out naturally.