Josh writes:
The Climate Red Pill, really easy to take, zero side effects. Thanks to @ScottAdamsSays and another free speech periscope.
I’m guessing the “blue pill” is so chock-full of political ingredients, it is impossibly large to swallow.
Like his work? Buy him a pint.
The blue pill is designed to be easy to swallow, but leads to lifelong dependency.
nfs +1google
Forgot to include that their null hypothesis is laughable junk science – Frictionless Solid Sheet Atmosphere Back Radiation Hypothesis
Here is another scheme to fight climate change:
– jet fuel made from atmospheric CO² and renewable-electrolysis hydrogen
– straight up CO² removal from the atmosphere
It’s close to a perpetual motion machine.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/aerion-teams-carbon-engineering-sustainable-fuel?utm_rid=CPEN1000001742722&utm_campaign=24701&utm_medium=email&elq2=3688289eb5f0415284b7fc949c603d85
Looked at your link. Bernard. Their fuel costs will be about 10 times the cost of fossil fuels. It’ll never fly.
That’s why I posted it and mentioned the perpetual motion machine.
Ah, sorry, I didn’t realize the sarcasm.
Call it the Griff/Loydo effect. The alarmist comments here can get so brainless, that one can’t tell the serious from the sarcastic when the poster name is unrecognized.
Don’t blame me for your incapacity, check your medication.
The sad thing is that Loydo has no idea how funny she is.
Degenerate sack of filth.
“Don’t blame me for your incapacity …”
I have observed that it it very difficult for other people to detect sarcasm or irony in my posts that is “obvious” to me unless I include a “smiley” or a “sarcasm HTML tag” (and even then some people still manage to “miss” it).
Probably something to do with communicating via words at a distance (in both space and time) rather than talking directly with someone face-to-face.
I propose that this “Law of being unable to see the Possibility Of Embedded Sarcasm” be more widely discussed … but that’s a bit long to type, maybe if we shortened it to “POE’S Law” instead ?
There are a number of issues with Direct Air Capture that make this approach incredibly costly. First, there needs to be a scrubbing of 0.04% CO2 from the atmosphere using some caustic scrubbing solution (sodium hydroxide is one way). Then the CO2 has to be released from the carbonate solution and cleaned to be fed to the next step. This most likely is a Water/Gas Shift reactor that runs at very high temperature (meaning huge energy consumption) that takes CO2 + H2 and turns it into CO and H2O. The H2 comes from Electrolysis of water, so this becomes a very expensive way to use and make water in the overall process. Next the CO +H2 can be converted into hydrocarbons by either the Fischer-Tropsch process or by ethanol synthesis using Acetogenic Bacteria (LanzaTech and others do this). The ethanol can be dehydrated into ethylene and oligomerized into short chain hydrocarbons in the jet fuel range (C8 to C16) with some yield loss to other products.
So the final summary is that CO2 is removed from air and converted into fuel with many steps involved and lots of equipment and energy used in the process. Read that this is very costly and not easily scaled up. Removing 1 Million tons of CO2 from the air per year yield 6,500 bbl/day. Consumption of jet fuel is normally 2 million bbl/day, so this is a drop in the bucket in terms of needed production of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuels).
Right now, synthetic jet fuel can only be used at 50% in jet fuel blends, so there is no way to have 100% sustainable jet fuel in use in aircraft. And this won’t change for 20 years.
One can only estimate the capital expense for such a process. The F-T process which is much simpler than Direct Air Capture costs about $300,000/bbl/day capacity. So this minimum investment cost for 6,500 bbl/day would be $1.95B. A tidy sum for such a small volume of fuel. And that doesn’t include the CapEx for the renewable power.
Considering the industrial chemical processes absolutely have to operate 100% of the the time, there will be incredible investment needed to make power for this project available 100% of the time. And I haven’t even begun to estimate the amount of electric power needed to run this operation. Remember that you are taking a feedstock that is in a thermodynamically low energy state into a very high energy state which requires both energy to convert the feed, but also lost entropy in every step of the process. This is not a trivial effort. Considering all the steps involved and the energy lost in each step, I doubt that this process would be greater than 10% energy efficient. An incredible waste of electric power no matter what the source.
So I predict that this project will never be funded and would most likely fail anyway if built.
CO2 is harmless. All else is hysteria.
Great analysis, Dr. Bob — though separation into paragraphs would make it more accessible 🙂
Chances are very good that Aerion Supersonic and Carbon Engineering:
a) have never consulted a ChemE or a power engineer, or;
b) have consulted a ChemE and a power engineer, know their approach is an unworkable crock, and are; b1) cynically misleading investors, and; b2) cynically farming for subsidies.
It certainly looks like hi-tech RICO, to me.
b1 + interim b2
b2 will never been enough to make the crock financially viable. They will take as much subsidies as they can while trying to spin the yarn as long as they can. Carbon Engineering is located in greener-tan-thou British Columbia after all…
In the end, it will always have been b1.
The sad thing is that Aviation Week (I’m a regular reader) is a well-established and credible industry publication, and yet they regularly publish green aircraft stories like this (and many others) without a word of critical analysis.
Few people realize the Blue Pill is meant to be taken as a suppository.
I suppose, then, that a few people swallow them without removing the foil. So many mistakes to make, so little time.
Joel,
Preparation BP.
the blue pill comes as a suppository
So that is the real reason climate alarmists have those manic facial expressions? Now I really pity them.
Speaking of taking the Blue pill, here’s a video of college students who are willing to give up free speech if it would make others more comfortable.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15219
So, if your opinion represents a reasonable argument against*their* opinion, that’s taken as offensive and a reason to silence you.
Their views make me uncomfortable.
They should not be allowed to say that.
Recursive
In the movie/book the blue pill actually kills you. Seems even more appropriate now, eh?
I don’t know about the book (never read it), but in the movie, he says, “Take the blue pill and you wake up in your bed and go on with your life as before” or something close to that. There is no indication or hint at all that it will kill you.
The red pill looks good — proven high-efficacy against woke-syndrome.
Scott Adams wrote a simple explanation of how “magic models” sleight-of-hand works, too:
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2017/03/06/my-1-million-climate-model-bet/
But the blue pill is covered at no cost in ObamaCare coverage.
I thought the blue pills just caused a bunch of over-excitable pricks.
I’ll get me coat…
Who said anything about swallowing it? Wrong end!
A funny thing about CO2 capture is that it really needs to be done with the exhaust from a power plant or other concentrated source because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that it’s hardly worth mentioning. 400 parts per million means 4 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of air. Like I always say, save the world from the short sighted and greedy plants. Free the carbon!