If they’re actually sequestering the carbon fully, like injecting it back underground, then it’s equivalent to not emitting in the first place. I think the issue is that the offsetting methods companies are using are not actually sequestering carbon. Like promising to not cut down trees or burying logs insufficiency underground.
If the carbon is properly sequestered after capture, and the energy use is accounted for in emissions, wouldn’t net zero be just as good as zero? It’s almost always going to be way more expensive to take the carbon back out of the atmosphere than to not emit it in the first place, so I’d think you’d get mostly the same effect.
Wasn’t the steam deck OLED the incremental upgrade? I thought they did a sight spec bump along with the screen upgrade.
Hmm, cutting sulfur dioxide emissions for health reasons is bad for global warming because sulfur dioxide clouds have a net cooling effect with reflection.
If data isn’t being accessed, it isn’t using much power. So it just minisculy hurts the company storage costs
All sorts of fun to be had overlying various things. I guess Africa is about 2 Russias in size.
Is that saying it’d cost $80B to cap all the unused wells? That seems really high. I wonder why it costs so much.
Are the states that have a majority swing states, so have more advertising and campaigning, or are they just more politically active?
Fun fact, sometimes computers can grow crystals from their solder.
Those would be some of the side effects. But I could definitely also be remembering wrong too.
One of the ideas is reflecting more light into space by making it permintely overcast, right? Seed clouds high in the atmosphere. That one is really drastic, and might not even lower temperatures. Lowering carbon emissions is less expensive and has fewer side effects than alternatives. But we might need to still do those if we shoot way past climate targets before we cut our emissions.
They mention low cost high energy density and fast charging, (which are the big three) but they don’t give test numbers for any of them.
If I’m reading figure 1b from the pre per review paper correctly, it looks like they might be very good. But I didn’t see any actual measurements in the paper.
Sounds promising, but we need Wh/kg and W/kg numbers to see if the performance is any good.
Maybe Star Citizen can beat it now, it started in 2010 and is still in development.
Yeah it is. My comment then too.
SpaceX has been receptive to design changes to starlink in the past to minimize impact, like decreasing reflectivity and reflection angles for astronomers. They might be receptive to moving to different alloy for the body construction.
Magnesium comes to mind that would be light but expensive. Steel alloys might be cheap and heavy options for later when starship is operational. Would those have similar effects on ozone, or is it only the aluminum oxides? Carbon fiber also looks promising. It could be pretty cheap and light if you can keep it planar rather than custom formed. Someone had mentioned wood in a different thread, but I’m uncertain if that’d work because of off gassing.
Good! They must have accelerated the trend quite a bit from when I could find data on their energy mix. But it does look like they’re largely replacing with gas rather than renewables.
Wolves are apex predators. Or were till we turned them into poodles.
Oh I get what you’re getting at now. Yeah if sequestering is limited, you should be using as little as you can. But for applications like rockets, it’s much more effective to sequestere CO2 than to try to make something like an electric water rocket.