Been thinking about posting this for awhile. Decided to pull the trigger.
I have a possible solution to two issues in the news.
First, I have a Chemical Engineering degree and did that for 3 years and then I was a programmer(4 languages)/systems programmer/Dasd (storage) admin/DBA in IDMS database for over 20.
“Problem # 1: Too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, I know, it’s garbage but work with me here. Two ways to solve that. One: stop burning hydrocarbons and coal. Two: take the CO2 out of the air and ” sequester” it.
Problem #2: Eventually we will run out of oil.
Yes, I know, its going to quite awhile, but again, work with me here.
We have the technology to take CO2 out of the air and combining it with water to make just about any hydrocarbon we want. (And coal)
(Note: we already get CO2 out of the air in fairly large scale to produce, among other things, dry ice, CO2 fire extinguishers and CO2 for carbonating carbonated beverages)
Its not a physics problem. Its an engineering problem. Its been done for quite a few compounds. ….. In the lab.
Example alkylation. We can make high octane gasoline from other hydrocarbons. And do it a lot on large scale now.
Just scale it up. And if we are missing some intermediate hydrocarbons, just put human thinking, necessity and $$$ together, and I’m sure we can find a way.😊
Would we have to build factories?
Yup. Engineering problem, remember?
Big problem: Energy. Takes a lot. Estimated 6 to 10 times the energy to produce gasoline (taking in all the steps)that you get burning it.
Where do we get that kind of energy?
Nuclear, baby! Also not a physics problem.
So we remove CO2 from the air and produce hydrocarbons.
And coal? Well, pretty much. Worked in a refinery that took heavy hydrocarbons, and in effect removed the carbon to produce gasoline and “petroleum coke”. Essentially carbon, i.e coal.
Win win!😊
9 replies on “A modest proposal (No, not THAT propsal!)”
The fly in your ointment is costs. If what you’re suggesting can produce, say, gasoline for $3 a gallon then you’re competitive and have a shot at going somewhere. If not, then not.
The problem with “green” energy is that it costs a multiple of cheap hydrocarbon energy in the form of gas and petroleum. The problem would be the same, I think, the way you’re suggesting it be tackled.
That’s why the Left is trying to make gas and oil derived energy more expensive. If gas and oil are cheaper than “green” energy then the way to make the two competitive is to increase the price of oil and gas. At least as far as Leftist thinking goes. It’s not surprising that they would have everything topsy-turvy. Hell, why ruin a perfect record?
Your scheme faces the same problem.
Now, if you could find a way to do it competitively you might have something.
This post was to make a point that we can keep the CO2 levels wherever we want without stopping burning hydrocarbons. High cost?
You betcha! Would it get lower with scaling up?
You betcha!
Still higher than now? You.. Ok, you get the point.
Trying to point out that there are alternate solutions to a supposed problem that does not really exist.
And yes, we will eventually run out of oil. (Natural gas even now can be made from biomass fairly cheaply)
I have confidence that we can figure things out. And even live a better, less expensive life. What I posted can be done now, but there is no good reason to.
Who knows what we can do in the future?
The Law of Unintended Consequences will rear its ugly head. Once someone figures out how to do this efficiently, it will be over done and plants will die from lack of CO2. Once the plants die, there will be a reduction in O2, and the mammals, fowl and reptiles will die (for those unsure, we are mammals).
Now a reduction in animal life will actually excite the Malthusian Leftists, who think the real problem is too many people.
So I fear that they will embrace this idea.
BTW – I used to sell big compressors for Air Separation plants. Very cool (literally and figuratively) facilities.
I know that too low CO2 is a death sentence.
But two things:
One, I’m needlng the leftists and climate alarmists by presenting A solution to their “crisis” that ruins their plan.
Two: if done properly, we can set the CO2 level where we want by still burning hydrocarbons. Release the gas guzzlers! Why not, if the CO2 does not increase to “deadly” levels.
We get to keep our cars, planes, and everything else that produces this “dead)y” gas.
Hydrocarbons are a much denser, lighter, power supply than batteries, and are easier to “recharge”, so our way of life can continue. (And yes, I know you know this)
Elite plan ruined. Middle class safe…. And getting closer to elite lifestyle.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues.
Great fun!
And somehow I know you knew most of this.
But most people here dont. And even I never even heard about
” petroleum coke” before I worked in a refinery
And if I had time, I’d !ist why I laugh a little at the old “Shell, with platformate” ad.
Hint: 1 Its not totally a good thing, but can be. 2 just about every brand of gasoline has it.
Addendum: I once climbed in an inactive platformer. I have a fear of heights, and it freaked me out. But I did it.
But if you cannot regulate your way to low CO2, how can the government expand it’s power?
Silly question! By actually telling the truth for once and declaring a too low CO2 is “an existential crisis”. Which it would be for once.
See Ron Swanson Alter Ego comment above.
Of course it’s a silly question. It’s a useful silliness in that it mocks the tyrannical leftists and their insatiable lust for power and control of things that they cannot control. The mockery must continue.
Asking if the left can come up with reasons to expand their power is like asking if humans are flawed.
As to mocking…
Thomas More (paraphrased slightly) : “The Devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” was dedicated to Lucifer. So the quote applies.
The same mocking question can be asked of any government regulation. All such things are usurpations of individual autonomy to centralize power in feeble and doomed-to-failure attempts to satiate politicians’ lust