As another yardstick, it will cost about 2x the annual world GDP to mitigate all emissions this way. With normal amortisation rates and operating costs, it will be about 1.5x-2x more than entire energy expenditure worldwide.
I wonder if this is simply a scheme to siphon public money. What a good catch for Fox News!
Of course, if $100 per ton ever becomes a reality, then it's just 3% of world GDP and is probably affordable. But that's a pie in the sky "forward looking statement".
> You could also phrase this as 'global GDP would triple from this initiative'
No, you couldn’t, not in real terms.
Let’s suppose a government diverted 2x GDP to this proposal. It can’t tax 200% of output—it must print money. G goes to 2x prior-year GDP. Pretty much immediately, every other component collapses to zero (besides expectations, the government is basically seizing all base metals production and transportation and labor) amidst hyperinflation. Which makes your real G, and GDP, lower than before.
I think they just understand that this is very unlikely to work even with best case estimates from people with a direct financial interest in this working
It’s part of the IEA’s net zero by 2050 plan. An understanding of basic physics is all that is required to see that DAC must be in the mix to achieve net zero emissions globally.
Where is all this energy going to come from? Cause fission is the only thing I’m aware of that we know that can generate enough new electricity capacity to do reclamation. Fusion is too far out and solar/wind can’t handle enough of the grid to have enough left over to also be doing reclamation.
The economic and legal arguments are a joke. The only serious plan would involve 100x or even 1000x our investments in fission R&D and capacity build out (and fusion research too because fission needs to get us there).
Don’t see that happening until the situation getting dire enough and that’s going to be too late because capacity can’t come online fast enough and these are runaway global processes. It’s taken 200 years of really bad destruction and it would take much longer than that running reclamation going at an insane rate to try to undo that damage. Arguably we’re already in runaway territory - We didn’t go to 0 but it was the single largest global reduction in co2 and still one of the worst global warming events we’ve seen so far. Do not expect anything magical from net 0. At this point it’s massively negative 0. That 2c of warming is a dream at this point. I don’t know what the actual number is because the international reports are constantly getting rewritten by politicians because the scientists are just being “too alarming”. It’s a joke.
People on this technology forum are skeptical that an incredibly inefficient technology used to recover carbon from air is a better investment than using technology to emit less carbon in the first place.
This isn't defense in depth, this is deciding what color you want the background of you 'about our security team' webpage, while your system is actively getting compromised.
$53M for 1K tons of capacity vs 37B tons annual mitigation needs, assuming 20 years amortisation, and purchase price being about half of the total lifetime costs including financing, which is typical for renewable energy systems, resulting in ~$200T a year vs $165T world GDP, so yes, oops, 1.2x world GDP :) which is still kinda too costly :D
>We could use non-carbon sources to triple energy production if we really wanted to.
Nothing says the company is spending all their money on this facility, and I massively doubt the second and third such facility would cost anywhere near the same amount.
Also there's no need to finance, just cap annual builds at N/20 per year.
> exactly my point.
Huh? I thought you were arguing capture needs too much power, and what I was saying was that capture does not need too much power.
If you're suggesting replacing most of our existing electrical production, I agree, but capture would still be useful.
I suggest that capture is a bullshit idea and this company is a bullshit company. We don't need capture, we need carbon-free renewable electricity and stuff powered by that electricity and batteries to store it. That's all solved, scaled, and economics is there. Everything else is just a detestable way to siphon public money.
The book wasn't a compilation of independent research papers. It was produced out of a compilation of interviews done to better understand millionaires.
Support was defined by the wealthy parent providing financial support, whether through a stipend, gifts, or whatever. It turned out that, despite the best of intentions, such support almost inevitably wound up with destructive emotional dynamics.
What’s an example? I thought the family safety net was a bigger factor in children from wealthy families starting riskier ventures earlier in life and perhaps serially. I’ve never heard of a company starting like you describe so I assume it isn’t that common, but maybe people just don’t talk about it much? Or maybe you are just exaggerating the loan magnitude by quite a lot?
But presumably it is also possible that some children were smart and successful, so therefore the parents didn't feel the need to provide so much support.
Whereas others were perhaps struggling with everything so the parents gave much more support.
Everyday example: the parents of disabled people dedicate almost everything they've got to help their children, and often end up poor and with a poor quality of life themselves as a result.
Well, it comes a lot of from the good stuff that involved parenting does.
In other words, even taking kids to school in a car instead them walking (or at least on the bike, but their own feet still involved, therefore they are themselves 100% in control in going to school) is the support that is not the in the list of "support" but will be in the long run. I should mention, I do recognize the time constraints of current society.
It's on a different topic. ie. That if people speak up for themselves, or they want to address unfairness or inequality in their society, it's because their parents hugged them when they cried as babies, instead of ignoring them, or whatever you're supposed to do to "toughen them up" (ie. turn them into terrified adults, washed up in middle age, who see any new youth movement as a life-threatening trend that must be stopped).
My parents had several children, and they always say that they noticed behavioral differences even in the first baby months. In other words, some behavioral traits or impulses are more due to nature, not nurtured by their parents. Some babies cry more, some less, some eat more, some less, even if you approach them equally.
> In "The German Mother and Her First Child", Haarer wrote, “It is best if the child is in his own room, where he can be left alone.” If the child starts to cry, it is best to ignore him: “Whatever you do, do not pick the child up from his bed, carry him around, cradle him, stroke him, hold him on your lap, or even nurse him.”
It reminds me of every layoff ever. It's a remarkable feature of layoffs that the people organizing them never have to lay themselves off. Think of the awkward conversations they would have had to have with their family...
"Honey, I did a cost/benefit analysis and found that my role was parasitic value extraction. To maximise the goals of the organisation I have decided to make myself redundant. Further I have decided to give myself 0 days of notice and 0 compensation so that the organisation can use that money to further it's important goals. I'm afraid Christmas is cancelled this year. However, think of the shareholder value I have created."
The mistake OP makes is to assume that the objective of the business is to be a an efficient and productive enterprise.
But that ignores the fact that the business is composed of individuals drawn of the population of human beings who have more prosaic biological needs. From the perspective of management, the enterprise is simply a thing that exists for the purpose of letting them be in charge of it.
This explains several other "paradoxes" such as why wages are low, or why the social security safety net isn't great. Happy, healthy, productive workers, who can speak their minds freely when it comes to problems, even problems created by their superiors, might lead to more efficiency and higher profits. But they also rob management of their social position and the daily experience of being surrounded by people who hold them in very high regard, and treat them with respect and deference. We don't need to do a randomized controlled trial to figure out which of these two alternate universes we're currently residing in.
That is why any political treaty or consensus between management and workers, such as the new-deal or post-war consensus, will eventually be attacked and destroyed by the managers and owners even if it tanks the entire economy with it. The last 40 (and especially the last 10-15) years of US/european history and the destruction of the post-war consensus appears to have borne this theory out.
The point of takeover layoffs is that problem you describe in the first paragraph is nullified.
A well publicised example was the recent takeover of Musk of Twitter. He started by firing everyone at the top first, before moving on to cutting general staff second.
That's usually exactly the way to fix this problem, because BS-ing middle management requires apathetic upper management who're only concerned with milking their positions as long as they can (requiring no-one upset the apple cart). That in turn requires owners who are too dispersed, distant, or incompetent to band together and root out such parasites from the top down.
They don't care about the policies. If you believe that any of these people are good faith actors or care about the benefits of policies then you haven't been paying attention for the last 13 years.
This is pure politics. They know they're going to get smashed in the next election. They're just trying to get as many of their number to hang in there like barnacles.
In order to do that they have to throw a bucket of chum to their base to get them up on their hind legs to do a little dance.
If only these drive-by contributors would be around to maintain the stuff like secretaries that would be a dream. As it is, I think you may have the roles reversed: the maintainers are not there to merge your patch and look after it in perpetuity.
The entire purpose of these responses is to repel the drive-by contributor who invariably generates clerical work for the full-time maintainer. It's just a sad fact about the nature of this work that it's often done by volunteers who are massively overloaded, and "contributions" are often so minuscule or low quality that they are actually just additional time-demands on already-overworked maintainers.
Repelling drive-by contributors usually pertains to people who want to dump massive amounts of feature creep into existing FOSS. There's a legitimate place for not adding Bobs massive feature list all at once because you don't know if Bob will be around after 2 years and you end up cutting most of them because you can't figure them out.
The last place biting drive-by contributors should apply is for bugfixes. Bugfixes are one of the most common ways beginners/newcomers are incentivized to contribute (and keep contributing), especially to FOSS. Even Stallman, who otherwise is someone who I would not consider a good example for any kind of communication, implicitly acknowledges that if you're a maintainer, you should try to work with people submitting patches to get them merged rather than antagonize them because of your possible maintenance burden[0].
[0]: https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html (see the how to learn to program section, which while largely bad advice on actually learning how to program, does have the nugget that "fixing bugs is a great way to get into FOSS dev" and "most maintainers will be happy to receive your patches and work with you to get them formatted and correct", which is imo implicit advice for maintainers to be kind to new contributors.)
Generally the value that you would bring with your fix is not worth the burden you put on everyone else. There are many hobby projects with a more open attitude specifically for this reason, because they are willing to take this burden for the sake of having people feel good about contributing. Try Serenity for example. Most open source projects obviously will not have such an attitude.
I mean, we're not talking about contributors who implement a whole new feature which you hadn't planned and want you to merge it, we're talking about bug fixes, which are generally short, and their value should be easy to gauge?
Would you simply accept a random persons PR fixing a bug without basically re-doing all the work?
I know I wouldn't.
Even a simple line change (especially in huge projects like the kernel) can have unexpected consequences. Your fix might fix the bug in question but cause others down the line. It can make the code harder to maintain, not fit style guides, etc. There are numerous issues caused by these "drive by patches".
Unless you actually maintain a project or is heavily involved, it's easy to miss the forest from the trees.
Ironically, the person sending the patch is most times being paid by a company to do so (since they are fixing an issue they found) while the maintainer is most likely unpaid/underpaid.
I've had a very small experience maintaining a library and already had to deal with "bug fixes" that take huge swaths of your time and simply cannot be merged. So I empathize with the maintainer here much more than the Cisco employee that was allowed days of paid work to poke around the issue and tried to fix it. The maintainer very likely had to reproduce the bug and consider any implications of the fix beyond what the author would have by the simple fact he actually maintains that project.
Personally I think a co-authored tag wouldn't hurt, but I cannot blame the maintainer for not having that in his mind when he's focused in doing his job (which is, again, most likely unpaid/underpaid).
But I can't help but feel disgust from a paid Cisco employee bashing an open source maintainer simply because his ego got slightly bruised.
I don’t know that seems like a good way to make sure no one knows how to maintain these things after the core contributors die. I’ve seen PR ping pong mentioned elsewhere and it’s odd because “PR ping pong” is part of how I became an effective member of my team and eventually eased some of the load for everyone else.
