Remember me
▼ Content

CC and S


CC and S12-01-2020 01:20
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
If i remember correctly Prof Wysessions of Washington Univ of St. Louis has stated that Carbon Capture and Sequestration increases the cost of fossil fuels by 40%. Also, according to memory, once money is spent, that money will be respent and respent about 7 times on the average. Obviously much of that 7 times spending will require more fossil fuels for the production of goods and services.
That being said, all that respending will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a great deal. It seems to me that it could actually cause more CO2 than by not using CCand S but i would like to hear more from the members on this.
Edited on 12-01-2020 01:21
12-01-2020 02:07
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
keepit wrote:
If i remember correctly Prof Wysessions of Washington Univ of St. Louis has stated that Carbon Capture and Sequestration increases the cost of fossil fuels by 40%. Also, according to memory, once money is spent, that money will be respent and respent about 7 times on the average. Obviously much of that 7 times spending will require more fossil fuels for the production of goods and services.
That being said, all that respending will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a great deal. It seems to me that it could actually cause more CO2 than by not using CCand S but i would like to hear more from the members on this.



One of the reasons why I'm hopeful solar panels can be improved is because then the waste heat can help to reduce toxic emissions and improve CC. It might also allow for preheating of the fuel.
Of course, better solar panels could also help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
I have been pursuing an experiment for several years because ti might be possible to convert CC into O3. If so, then it could be transported to the lower stratosphere where it could help to replenish the ozone layer which helps to lessen the amount of solar radiation that enters into our atmosphere.
12-01-2020 20:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
If i remember correctly Prof Wysessions of Washington Univ of St. Louis has stated that Carbon Capture and Sequestration increases the cost of fossil fuels by 40%. Also, according to memory, once money is spent, that money will be respent and respent about 7 times on the average. Obviously much of that 7 times spending will require more fossil fuels for the production of goods and services.
That being said, all that respending will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a great deal. It seems to me that it could actually cause more CO2 than by not using CCand S but i would like to hear more from the members on this.



One of the reasons why I'm hopeful solar panels can be improved is because then the waste heat can help to reduce toxic emissions and improve CC. It might also allow for preheating of the fuel.
Of course, better solar panels could also help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
I have been pursuing an experiment for several years because ti might be possible to convert CC into O3. If so, then it could be transported to the lower stratosphere where it could help to replenish the ozone layer which helps to lessen the amount of solar radiation that enters into our atmosphere.


Alchemy? Transmute carbon, into ozone? Does that mean we can turn lead into gold as well...

Solar panels aren't going to improve much, unless they find a whole new magical material. We can only expect very small improvements, which don't really compensate much for environmental degradations.
13-01-2020 06:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
If i remember correctly Prof Wysessions of Washington Univ of St. Louis has stated that Carbon Capture and Sequestration increases the cost of fossil fuels by 40%.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
keepit wrote:
Also, according to memory, once money is spent, that money will be respent and respent about 7 times on the average.

Money doesn't have an average on how many times it's spent. It doesn't just disappear, you know.
keepit wrote:
Obviously much of that 7 times spending will require more fossil fuels for the production of goods and services.

Fossils aren't used for fuel.
keepit wrote:
That being said, all that respending will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a great deal.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth. Don't worry about CO2.
keepit wrote:
It seems to me that it could actually cause more CO2 than by not using CCand S but i would like to hear more from the members on this.

Zero. That's the number. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-01-2020 02:29
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Money does "disappear".
It's like this - the fed "prints" money and loans it to banks. The banks loan it to people and corporations etc. It then gets spent, and those who receive the spending spend it again and again and so on. Eventually someone uses the money to pay off a loan to the bank. The bank then pays off the loan from the fed and the money is deleted. That is how money disappears. But during that process it is used to purchase goods and services that cause the production of fossil fuel burning, thereby creating CO2. That is why i suspect that C C and S is an industry that will cause the creation of more CO2 than it sequesters.
14-01-2020 18:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Money does "disappear".
It's like this - the fed "prints" money and loans it to banks. The banks loan it to people and corporations etc. It then gets spent, and those who receive the spending spend it again and again and so on. Eventually someone uses the money to pay off a loan to the bank. The bank then pays off the loan from the fed and the money is deleted. That is how money disappears. But during that process it is used to purchase goods and services that cause the production of fossil fuel burning, thereby creating CO2. That is why i suspect that C C and S is an industry that will cause the creation of more CO2 than it sequesters.


Not quite.

While the Fed does loan money to the banks, They also GIVE money to the federal government. That money spent by the federal government does not get paid back.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-01-2020 20:27
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Actually, i was talking about the money loaned by the fed. This isn't govt spending which doesn't get paid back except that the govt then taxes that money.
14-01-2020 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Actually, i was talking about the money loaned by the fed. This isn't govt spending which doesn't get paid back except that the govt then taxes that money.


No. The government does not tax that money. It is a gift from the Fed. It's how the federal government can just write rubber checks to the Fed. It is not paid back.

It's why the Fed was created.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-01-2020 00:25
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
ITN,
You misunderstood my post.
The money the fed loans out doesn't get taxed except when it gets spent by the corporations and people who receive it and then spend it.
The money the Treasury disburses as federal spending does also get taxed when it gets spent and much of it is taxable to the recipient (SS) for example.
The profit the fed makes is sent to the treasury and doesn't get sent back because it wasn't a loan.
Edited on 15-01-2020 00:35
15-01-2020 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You misunderstood my post.
No. You are ignoring context again.
keepit wrote:
The money the fed loans out doesn't get taxed except when it gets spent by the corporations and people who receive it and then spend it.

Yes it does.
keepit wrote:
The money the Treasury disburses as federal spending does also get taxed when it gets spent and much of it is taxable to the recipient (SS) for example.

Also true.
keepit wrote:
The profit the fed
Neither the Fed nor the federal government have a profit. They are government or quasi-government.
keepit wrote:
makes is sent to the treasury and doesn't get sent back because it wasn't a loan.

It is not stored in the treasury. It gets spent on things like Senator Boondoggle's Monument to Government Stupidity and Waste.

You have now lost all context. You probably have no idea how we got here, do you?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 15-01-2020 03:48
15-01-2020 04:05
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
You're pretty confused about economics ITN. where did you learn anything about economy?
15-01-2020 04:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
You're pretty confused about economics ITN. where did you learn anything about economy?

Both my father and brother were CPA's.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-01-2020 04:13
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
I doubt it.
If that were true, what happened to you?
Nothing bad i hope.
Edited on 15-01-2020 04:13




Join the debate CC and S:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
3 phases to CC8412-09-2020 05:04
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact