(April 3, 2020 at 5:40 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(April 3, 2020 at 4:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I haven’t seen any hard figures on the energy costs of recycled energy, but it strikes me as a good idea all the same. Two options:
1. There are x particles of carbon in the atmosphere. We can continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate of increase, and make x an ever-larger number.
2. We can remove some of those particles, turn them into fuel, and burn that. This would seem to have the result of either stabilizing the value of x or (at the very least) slowing the rate of increase.
Doesn’t seem to be the worst idea. It’s kind of like sourdough starter. If you keep feeding it without discarding any, you’re going to end up with an awful mess. If you do the discarding (or at least bake a lot), things are much more manageable.
Boru
Really?
You don't see were that falls flat on it's ass?
....
Not a whole lot of engineering types here, huh?
Could you explain it, please? I mean, the content-free sneering is adorable, but it doesn’t really move the discussion along.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
