I think we are just seeing the last rounds of the previous hype cycle petering out. The last decade or so has been an unending exercise in “we are all going to die” which has led to a whole bunch of people saying “we have to do SOMETHING.” Unfortunately urgency does generally not lead to good allocation decision making, and it ends up in a very feelings based mode of thinking.
Ocean fertilization suffers from a lack of ability to hype and productize, and it takes systemic thinking to really understand. All of that requires “slow” thinking rather than reactive panic.
Just wondering how this is different than spending billions on AI unicorns that turn out to just be Indian programmers? Perhaps it has something to do with the overall investment environment? But I'm paid 10 cents every time I beat up on the administrations targets, so nvm.
The constraints are not thermodynamic. Read the key papers by Klaus Lackner. There are a number of engineering and material supply difficulties, but the issue is not thermodynamic. We have developed a number of still imperfect technologies to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. The real constraint is available power. Climeworks had operational issues including sulfur venting from geothermal vents messing up their capture materials, but their work has advanced the science and our engineering knowledge. The entire decarbonization effort is living under the useful fiction that there will be abundant non-CO2 emitting power available to substitute in various ways for fossil fuels. If we don’t develop these sources, all our efforts will be for naught.
We do have to remove CO2 at some point—the average residence time is 100,000 years and we keep warming after 2100. The technology to use that power at scale needs to be nurtured and developed over the next 20 years. Your analysis and commentary is lacking.
Yes, my analysis is lacking. The constraints aren't thermodynamics. The real constraint is power.
Wait let's look up thermodynamics...
thermo·dynam·ics
[ˌθəːmə(ʊ)dʌɪˈnamɪks]
the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.
Once again, you provide a brilliant analogy to explain the folly of a successfully hyped climate non-solution. I very much appreciate your clear-eyed focus on the problem of scale and wish you and your team luck with ocean biosynthesis. It could be a game-changer and is worth gambling on.
Perhaps the reviewers are almost equally bad with big numbers, but I'm inclined to think that possible applicability just doesn't matter all that much to many academics. They've been trained to assess things by the rigor of the proposal; let those in industry worry about such mundane things like applicability.
I did not intend to denigrate academia with the comment. The impulse to focus only on the strengths of academia can be a good thing, as in setting aside practical applications for the time being. I just wanted to suggest a different hypothesis why research like this gets funded. In any case, I don't see how my hypothesis is more denigrating than the original one, in that they're not good with large numbers.
I think we are just seeing the last rounds of the previous hype cycle petering out. The last decade or so has been an unending exercise in “we are all going to die” which has led to a whole bunch of people saying “we have to do SOMETHING.” Unfortunately urgency does generally not lead to good allocation decision making, and it ends up in a very feelings based mode of thinking.
Ocean fertilization suffers from a lack of ability to hype and productize, and it takes systemic thinking to really understand. All of that requires “slow” thinking rather than reactive panic.
Just wondering how this is different than spending billions on AI unicorns that turn out to just be Indian programmers? Perhaps it has something to do with the overall investment environment? But I'm paid 10 cents every time I beat up on the administrations targets, so nvm.
Love this. Exactly how I feel. Our only real hope is turning all this carbon into LIFE 🌱🐠
The side affect of this would also be Paradise on Earth 😌
The constraints are not thermodynamic. Read the key papers by Klaus Lackner. There are a number of engineering and material supply difficulties, but the issue is not thermodynamic. We have developed a number of still imperfect technologies to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. The real constraint is available power. Climeworks had operational issues including sulfur venting from geothermal vents messing up their capture materials, but their work has advanced the science and our engineering knowledge. The entire decarbonization effort is living under the useful fiction that there will be abundant non-CO2 emitting power available to substitute in various ways for fossil fuels. If we don’t develop these sources, all our efforts will be for naught.
We do have to remove CO2 at some point—the average residence time is 100,000 years and we keep warming after 2100. The technology to use that power at scale needs to be nurtured and developed over the next 20 years. Your analysis and commentary is lacking.
Yes, my analysis is lacking. The constraints aren't thermodynamics. The real constraint is power.
Wait let's look up thermodynamics...
thermo·dynam·ics
[ˌθəːmə(ʊ)dʌɪˈnamɪks]
the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.
These articles are auper helpful for context. Please keep them up long term even if they aren't super frequent.
Once again, you provide a brilliant analogy to explain the folly of a successfully hyped climate non-solution. I very much appreciate your clear-eyed focus on the problem of scale and wish you and your team luck with ocean biosynthesis. It could be a game-changer and is worth gambling on.
Perhaps the reviewers are almost equally bad with big numbers, but I'm inclined to think that possible applicability just doesn't matter all that much to many academics. They've been trained to assess things by the rigor of the proposal; let those in industry worry about such mundane things like applicability.
Why don't you talk to them if you're so interested? Not sure how much wisdom you're going to be able to get by just backbiting them online.
I did not intend to denigrate academia with the comment. The impulse to focus only on the strengths of academia can be a good thing, as in setting aside practical applications for the time being. I just wanted to suggest a different hypothesis why research like this gets funded. In any case, I don't see how my hypothesis is more denigrating than the original one, in that they're not good with large numbers.