Dave N wrote:
Nobody is suggesting
that conversion efficiency will even be significant, let alone anything
approaching 100%. Nobody is suggesting that all CO2 captured from power
stations can be converted into alcohol. I would have thought that was
obvious to most, but apparently it passed by you.

Well since the only reason you COULD have had for mentioning it was that
in fact that was EXACTLY what you thought it would do....yes it did
pass me by that you would have pointed to someth8ng totally irrelevant
in order not to prove a point you were not after all trying to make when
every indication was that in fact you were.

So you agree that the energy balance of synthetic hyrdocarbions makes
them uselsss for either making fuel or indeed fixing CO2 unless you have
a source of such unlimited energy at sucjh a low cost that you no longer
need to burn coal to make te lecetricity at all anyway?

If you would only pause for one moment to consider his paper on its
merits for its potential for converting *some* CO2 into alcohol using an
electromicrobial mechanism (his description), as a means both of
disposal of *some* CO2 and at the same time storage of *some* electrical
energy in a chemical form, then I might have more respect for your
opinions.


Golly. I can convert a teaspoon of CO2 to a teaspoon of petrol by
burning a liter of petrol. Top build a windmill that doesn't work./

Wow.

Perhaps the idea he is simply fishing for a grant, and mentioning the
most popular problem of our time and how his work might just conceivably
be as remotely connected to it as we are to Betelgeuse, was felt to
assist in this matter, did not cross what pasees for your mind?





Even a small conversion of CO2, if there is temporary excess
energy available on the grid, might be more useful than pumping it down
wells? Who knows if further development down the years can help Prof.
Liao's ideas evolve with significant efficiencies, perhaps even
approaching those of pumped storage schemes, but isn't it worth asking
the questions? Simply to dismiss his ideas out of hand is unworthy,
especially of someone who implies having undertaken academic research
for himself in the past.


better is to not build wind farms and generate excess electricity on the
grid.

All these renewabletard arguments are circular: They START with the
assumption that renewable energy is the answer and want to spend even
more money on trying to make it work, thus proving not that it is the
answer, but that it never ever WAS the ****ing answer.


To people who have teh power of critical thinking. But sometimes I think
thats only 4 people in te entire country.



Hopefully, somebody with an open and enquiring mind will be along
shortly.


The more open the mind is, the easier it is to full it with bull****, I
find.


With luck, it will be somebody who is able to contemplate and
respond to unfamiliar ideas without being unnecessarily offensive.


Oh that they were unfamiliar. Burt perpetual motion machines and fairies
have been around longer than I have been alive.

Would you consider your mind closed if, perchance, your daughter told
you to drive towards a rainbow, because where it touched the ground
there would be a pot of fairy gold?

Or perhaps you are in deepest Africa, and you notice a man reading a
book to a bunch of tribesmen, and when you get closer, you see the book
is upside down: When challenged he merely replies that you must have a
closed mind, because anyone who can read, can tread a book no matter
which way up it is.


If you are going to place your faith in a particular metaphysic, like
rationalism and science, to solve a given problem, it behooves you to
adhere to its precepts. In short you cannot have your metaphysical cake
and eat it too.

If you are doing science technology and physics the rules of science
technology and physics apply. Not the rules of fantasy and wish
fulfilment and miraculous Divine intervention.

Power generation is ruled by conversion efficiency and storage issues.
The reason we have a problem - that we cant simply take a 1.5v battery
and create infinite amounts of diesel - is the reason why we have a
fossil fuel crisis and a rising CO2 atmospheric component,.expecting it
to SOLVE the problem which is there BECAUSE IT CANT solve the problem,
is - something only a clueless ****** could actually believe was
possible. Even if some green press release hints that it MIGHT be
possible. Its not possible. Period.

Try NOT reading things you DON'T understand and NOT reading dumbed down
marketing spin that you THINK you understand and start actually learning
some SCIENCE.


I am SURE your mummy respects you and your daddy respects you and your
meeja studdies teecha respects you and you think you deserve some
respect. And I am sure I have trampled completely over your HuMan Right
To Be Respected For Being a Total Luser, but there you go.

I'm not a human rights lawyer. I am not trying to get a research grant
so I can pratt about with test tubes and bits of wire for another 5
years. I am not trying to rob you blind and sell you a domestic PV
panel, a wind turbine or a spurious government manifesto. I am an
engineer. And no machine I ever built that attempted to break the laws
of nature ever worked.

I am telling you the truth because I don't actually give a flying ****
what you think of me, or even if you believe me or not. If there are
enough people like you who believe that standing on the poop deck of the
titanic praying very hard is a better strategy than getting in a
lifeboat - and preferably one with a diesel engine - then you go your
way and I go mine.

But don't you dare get in my way.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.