On 29/04/15 10:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:08:06 +0100, Tim w wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

I have no doubt that TNP has vision, faith and hope for the future;
it's just not the same as yours. I doubt if his includes thousands of
windmills, hundreds of acres of solar panels, regular power cuts and a
slow decline in our standard of living brought about by expensive and
ultimately ineffective technologies. Yours may not either, but that's
the way a lot of superficial and ignorant thinking is heading.

Perhaps you would take more notice of the opinions of James Lovelock,
the man behind the 'Gaia Hypothesis' and a prominent environmentalist
over the last fifty years or so. I've just been reading his most
recent book 'A Rough Ride to the Future' (Penguin). In it he roundly
condemns the huge sums of money squandered on renewable energy
sources, which he regards as hopelessly impractical, and he considers
the environmental movement to be a powerful negative feedback on
enlightened technological progress. He is also damning of the
arguments against nuclear power and the way it has been presented by
environmentalists and the ignorant media as something to be feared.

It would seem to me that Lovelock and TNP have a lot in common, and
Lovelock has a very positive and optimistic view of the future.
Perhaps you should read him.

I am a firm believer that like America, we will in the end do the right
thing, after exhausting every other alternative.

To those of us who understand technology, the right thing is glaringly
obvious. To the millions of green zealots, its all a huge and terribly
difficult puzzle that will end only when they either go down with the
society they are trying to destroy, ir when they grow up and actually
learn to think, instead of saying 'I think' when they men 'this is what
the Guardian and the BBC says'.

They think they are ahead odf us, because they have clearly identified
where they want the world to go. Poor little ****s. We also agree that
is where the world wants to go, but the salient difference is that we
are in - or have been in - the business of trying to get it there. And
have decades more experience in the problems involved.

Any fool can say they believe in sustainability, zero pollution and a
clean environment. Getting one without killing 90% of the population is
however not quite so simple. Or we would have done it years ago.


Simple problems with simple solutions don't exist, because they were all
fixed years ago. What are left are the real bitch problems.

WE have been able to support the current population levels precisely
because we are supported by non-renewable energy.

The last time mankind was 'sustainable' in Europe was at the back end of
the stone age*. The moment we started digging up metals and smelting
them, we were no longer sustainable.

The last time we used only 'renewable' energy was in the 18th century,
when the population was a fairly stable 10 million or so.

If you want to go back to that - and indeed many seem to - be my guest.
I'll be there with a high tech weapon making sure you are part of the 60
million that need to die first.




*and even then flints are not inexhaustible.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll