Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter cybershot
- Start date
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Citation needed. I can only see articles like this online: Artificial leaves: Bionic photosynthesis as good as the real thingThe numbers may be the wrong way round due to dyscalculia but the chemistry is right and it still results in more CO2 being released due to the processes involved than is absorbed.
So I’m presuming you’re either doing your own research or are reading sites that are sponsored by vested interests with dishonest intent
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I'm sure it's been mentioned on these boards before as that's where I'm likely to have seen it.
In which case why am I encouraging people to insulate their houses and harness green technology? It would be highly counterproductive wouldn't it Muppet.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I was asking you to back up your claims about artificial leaves not list your green credentials, but you just seem to be paraphrasing vaguely from something you recall reading here. That’s not good enough.I'm sure it's been mentioned on these boards before as that's where I'm likely to have seen it.
In which case why am I encouraging people to insulate their houses and harness green technology? It would be highly counterproductive wouldn't it Muppet.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
WouldBe
Dislicksick
If it was on here I don't recall anyone questioning the source back then so why now?
And with dicks like you around in not sure the planet is worth saving.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Weasel words. I am questioning your sources now. If you can’t back up your claims with evidence, your claims are without credibility. You’re a scientist, you know how it works. Or are you one of the ‘scientists’ you’re bashing without any evidence to counter the claims you make for them.If it was on here I don't recall anyone questioning the source back then so why now?
And with dicks like you around in not sure the planet is worth saving.
Bingoman
Well-Known Member
That's the one, I'm also surprised that the Dancers just carried on in that clip to lol
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
That’s brilliant on every level, from assault with camera boom & the dancers dancing like fuck all happened
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Hmmm, yes and no.The numbers may be the wrong way round due to dyscalculia but the chemistry is right and it still results in more CO2 being released due to the processes involved than is absorbed.
I don't know about this specific technology you are talking about but I do your reasoning is not taking into account a number of chemical factors (let along other areas), there is the source of the energy that is required for reactions, the rate of reactions, what 'adsorbed' means, etc.
Where you are right is that carbon capture technology often does have 'hidden' costs andis no substitute for real radical action on reducing greenhouse gases.
Where you are wrong is that 'scientists' don't acknowledge this. Every talk I've hard to carbon capture technology has emphasised that it is not a solution to climate change, but rather a possible measure to help the transition away from fossil fuels.
(Frankly I think that, in general, efforts would be better concentrated on eliminating fossil fuels, but you're not really correct in your allegations. And of course new knowledge of carbon capture technology science has, like all science, possible benefits in areas we have not yet thought about).
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Yes I'm aware of that and fully agree with it.
Having looked last night into the direct from air carbon capture systems it turns out that they also rely on the lime water process to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
There are also ideas to dump lime in the sea to capture dissolved CO2 which might be slightly better as it produces calcium bicarbonate.
Either way if my maths is right it takes something like 800KW of energy to reduce limestone to lime which is currently done using fossil fuels and in the direct from air capture systems the lime is recovered by roasting it again which being pissed wet through will use even more energy.
But if some people on here are happy to bet their lives on a ridiculous process that basically digs limestone out of the ground, wastes energy to 'convert' it back into limestone and bury it back in the ground then there's no hope for any of us. Fortunately I'm 60 and not in good health so it won't affect me in the slightest.
Last edited:
pug
Well-Known Member
At the moment, as far as I understand it we need to stop using fossil fuels and find a way to remove loads of the carbon weve emitted, not really an either or situation. Planting trees etc helps but theres not land enough for all the trees needed. If you look at this old graph you can see.Yes I'm aware of that and fully agree with it.
Having looked last night into the direct from air carbon capture systems it turns out that they also rely on the lime water process to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
There are also ideas to dump lime in the sea to capture dissolved CO2 which might be slightly better as it produces calcium bicarbonate.
Either way if my maths is right it takes something like 800KW of energy to reduce limestone to lime which is currently done using fossil fuels and in the direct from air capture systems the lime is recovered by roasting it again which being pissed wet through will use even more energy.
But if some people on here are happy to bet their lives on a ridiculous process that basically digs limestone out of the ground, wastes energy to 'convert' it back into limestone and bury it back in the ground then there's no hope for any of us. Fortunately I'm 60 and not in good health so it won't affect me in the slightest.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
It is possible there may be some system like that but there is a lot of science in many other systems. I think more than an evenings googling is needed.Having looked last night into the direct from air carbon capture systems it turns out that they also rely on the lime water process to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
Er has anyone done that. You're the one pushing an individualist 'reduce your carbon footprint' line. Some of us are very keen on radical, collective action.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
When your point is ridiculed by ignorami with aggressive questioning and abuse thrown in then yes. I don't have to put up with that shit. As I've said it won't affect me so why should I give a shit what happens to the planet.
Let's just hope the next time some moron super glues themselves to a road that an approaching vehicle doesn't have break failure or lose control.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Are you sure you want to admit that on a thread like this and considering everything you’ve said on it?When your point is ridiculed by ignorami with aggressive questioning and abuse thrown in then yes. I don't have to put up with that shit. As I've said it won't affect me so why should I give a shit what happens to the planet.
Let's just hope the next time some moron super glues themselves to a road that an approaching vehicle doesn't have break failure or lose control.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Maybe because others will be affected. Millions of others.
Oh no - they’ve gone only gone and upset someone in Wimbledon on a £6k bike. This ‘cyclist’ will probably go and buy another SUV now just to spite them!
I think I posted pages ago criticising them for the art gallery stunt. I have changed my mind. I’m actually all for it. for various reasons. it would be better if impeded ordinary people going to work as little as possible. But the spectacle of the stunt, the disruption at highly televised events. Yes.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
After the big "Mr Environmentally Friendly" act and claims of being a scientist, as well as the abuse, it's worth noting that the same poster spent a long time pushing climate change denial on here. His behaviour on this thread makes much more sense in that context.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You’re applauding someone trying to run people over. Give your head a wobble
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
Seriously? you think assault with a deadly weapon against a group of protestors is justified by 1 man in a van???
Similar threads
