So Occidental Petroleum, a big American oil company, they are really good at a kind of oil production that involves injecting CO2 underground to squeeze more oil out of old wells. So when they heard about this technology to pull carbon out of the sky, they thought, wait; this could work for us. They plan to put some carbon underground just to store it.
This is worse than a zero sum game. Every litre of oil produces multiple litres of CO2 gas.
Doesn’t that mean that the oil produced here emits less net CO2? Since CO2 was used to extract it, taking it out of the atmosphere, that mean that the entire process of extraction and consumption emits less net CO2 than more traditional methods.
You don’t think it would just come back out the same hole they pulled the oil out of when they’re done? Or that the cavern they just created would collapse, releasing the gas at some point?
No, they can cap those off pretty well. Honestly, I think we need a way to start capturing CO2 and that’s a solid solution for holding a large amount of CO2.
Once our CO2 emissions finally come under control and we are not pumping out an insane amount, we will need to start finding ways to capture massive amounts of CO2 and holding them, or chemically changing the CO2 into liquids or solids.
The oil on the tanker belongs to the Yemeni state, but who represents that country is not yet settled.
Once it is settled, someone should litigate whoever owns the oil for the cost of the cleanup. It's annoying that both sides weren't able to agree to clean this thing up before it became an incident, if they want responsibility for the oil so bad then they can cover the cost of handling it.
In case anyone wasn’t clear, this is for drinking water/waste water systems. Not for cleaning up the ocean.
This sounds like a great, renewable, filter material that can be added (or replace existing filters) to a municipal water treatment plant. There’s serious issues with microplastics getting into drinking water, and this could certainly help with that.
People in this thread are looking for complicated answers. But the best thing to do with sawdust, plant matter and a tiny bit of micro plastics seems to me also to just burn it.
It’s not hopeless is all im saying. We still gotta do better to reduce use of plastics, but there is still hope to fix some of the damage we have already done
While I think this is a perfectly valid follow-up question, even if the “solution” is to bury it (with safeguards such as not able to get into groundwater), that’s better than it being in the drinking water. Short term at least.
Considering how early this research is, it’s also possible they wanted to know their filter works before solving disposal. And, while not explicit, it sounds like this is meant to replace existing filters that themselves use plastic, so this could be a net gain even if disposed in the exact same manner as the original filters however that may be.
Let the engine of capitalism generate wealth (as it does so better than any other economic system) … but then make sure that wealth is going to the people who generate it.
If the top is getting more than their fair share, redistribute it through government programs that benefit the workers and their families.
We need to do this nationwide so that tax cheats can’t just run away to a different state… And we need to do it at much higher level that recognizes the reality that no one has ever EARNED a billion dollars. They’ve only stolen it from their workers because of a rigged government and legal system.
And by the way, the rich should be super happy if we able to get this done, because the alternative is that we keep heading down the current path until the working class gets so poor that they can no longer feed their kids… and at that point, history tells us, the guillotines come out.
They won't be happy about it. You are right, they should be. But, they don't have that kind of perspective.
Being rich isn't about money, it's about ego. They think they could solve this with better outcomes and efficiency themselves, even though they will never actually do it.
It's why union busting is so popular from otherwise "good" companies run by "socially minded" executives. It's why companies will continue to amass wealth to the point where it negatively effects customers ability to purchase their products. It's why rich individuals continue to amass wealth when it doesn't really improve their quality of life, they could just stop working.
Because to them it's just a contest. They just need to show they are better than someone else; first one person, then another, then another, real world outcomes and everyone else be damned. They will take it as far as they're allowed until no one is left and everyone's lives and the planet are catastrophically ruined.
Capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. are just mechanisms for the distribution of finite resources. Allowing market forces to drive production is great for some things like consumer products, but not so great for things like healthcare, education, environmental protections, and kid’s lunches. Capitalism needs government restrictions more than capitalists like to admit.
Take a look at why communism failed: When resources are distributed by a central authority, it doesn’t matter how well intentioned they are, at best they can only approximate which goods will be valued most by which individual at any given time. People would end up with an abundance of stuff they didn’t want, and a deficit in things they needed.
In a free market, supply and demand are constantly adjusting on an individual level with every transaction. Can’t get flour at the price I want? Fine, I’ll get potatoes. Can’t get flour or potatoes? Maybe a communist government thinks rice would be a good substitute.
But if it’s money in my hand, maybe I know I’ve got some other carbs and starch, and if I can’t get flour or potatoes, my money would best go to medicine or shoelaces… the point is, I’m setting my own priorities, and they aren’t always related or predictable.
Maybe I really want shoe laces, but they aren’t worth $6 to me. Maybe I’d pay 50 cents for them, otherwise, I’d rather use butchers twine, for a fraction of the cost, and just resign myself to retying my shoe.
Capitalism allows people to be nimble and adaptive. Communism was a: you take what you get, and that’s IT.
So people were getting things they didn’t value, and highly valuing things they couldn’t get, and it was just … inefficient.
Well the USSR did also have a huge industrial machinery. But one thing that seems to emerge as a lesson from its downfall is that it is really hard to steer an economy with quotas and plans from the top.
A good market usually gives better incentives for people at every level. The problem is getting a good market which is definitely not the same as the libertarian dream of a super free market. Without good regulations it’s really easy for markets to get captured or become exploitative.
Some thinks should never be privatised(like infrastructure). And I think lots of industries would benefit from a state run (mostly nonprofit) competitor.
Billionaires also pledged to fund rebuilding Notre Dame in France and no one paid anything. Almost no one actually paid and it seems the press doesn’t care to see if anything has been paid since 2019: cbsnews.com/…/notre-dame-fire-update-big-donors-d…
Unfortunately, a big reason for this is that not only is sunscreen not usually used daily outside of going to the pool or the beach by most Americans, sunscreen is regulated and classified as an over the counter drug and schools legally have to treat them the same way unless a specification is made like it is in this case.
Also, A lot of younger Americans are slowly but surely adopting daily sunscreen especially because it’s trendy on tiktok. American sunscreen sucks and hasn’t had a new sunscreen chemical approved for market use in nearly 30 years due the drug regulations. America’s suncreens are quite literally worse than most other countries sunscreens which is a big factor why people don’t use them daily.
Ninja edit: I know this first hand because I take medication that causes me to burn easily, as well as have photosensitive skin conditions and it was painful to be allowed sunscreen on school grounds… in high school. Similar nonsense of having to get a doctors note to opt out of milk with the school lunch due to lactose intolerance.
The Neutrogena ultra mist spray is really good. It goes on clear, isn’t greasy and the high SPF ones work exceptionally well. I’ve bought it in the US at a CVS before and didn’t have to get it over the counter…but maybe that’s only a thing in some states?
Over the counter doesn’t actually always refer literally to over the counter. I’d consider a non prescribed medical item purchased from a cvs as over the counter, even if you don’t have to ask a pharmacist for it
From your name, I’m gonna assume you’re American as well.
The reason why it sucks both in my opinion (as well as clinically) is because the only “safe” broad spectrum sunscreens in the US that don’t rapidly degrade are titanium dioxide/zinc oxide. Those chemicals in chemical based sunscreens that make them have that distinct smell are more than 20 years old and are highly unstable chemicals that rapidly degrade as soon as they exposed to sunlight. The protection you get rapidly deteriorates, so reapplication is extra important and even then it’s not likely with those chemicals you get a full broad spectrum coverage. There’s two main wavelengths of UV that sunscreen has to target, UVB (rays that burn you) and UVA (rays that age you), both contribute to skin cancer. American chemical sunscreens only protect against so much UVA. The most effective sunscreen in the US right now is mineral based or mineral chemical mixed.
The sunscreen agents around the world, especially in Japan and Korea and Europe are the most effective and feel like light lotion with lower rates of irritation and higher UV protection. Australian and Kiwi sunscreens are the most heavy duty in the world with the highest regulation. But you can’t legally sell these sunscreens in the US, as they contain chemicals that have been stuck in the over the counter drug approval limbo for decades. You can technically import them, but it’s not really legal to and American stores aside from specific stores that import from Europe or Asia don’t sell them. People with extreme photosensitive conditions that live near Canada often go to Canada and buy tons of sunscreen just to ship it back to themselves.
It’s a mess. The bureaucratic hell isn’t moving either. As someone who’s not only at high risk of skin cancer but living with a photosensitive medical condition, it’s deeply infuriating.
Got to wonder who's making enough money off of shitty sunscreen sales to ensure no competition get approved (can't think of any other reason this is the case for you Americans, other than corruption)...
I don’t even think it’s corruption, it’s likely just a ton of bureaucracy completely fucking shit up. The FDA is completely busted in the way how the approve and manage things.
federalregister.gov/…/sunscreen-drug-products-for…An over the counter drug means over the counter, you can buy it and sell it fine as long as its properly labeled and tested by the FDA with their approved ingredients. It’s complicated and weird, but yes it is.
Over the counter drugs can be sold outside of a pharmacy, it’s more of a regulatory term than anything else. It mainly just means that the product needs to be labeled specifically in order to be called sunscreen, and must be tested by the FDA for its effectiveness. You can’t just mix lotion and zinc together and call it sunscreen, you need to prove it actually works.
The ocean is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to the ocean.
Which is also alarming, depending on the rate they break down plastics and whether they are harmful to humans.
It’s like having a snake problem, releasing mongooses, and suddenly having a mongoose problem
While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Well no, it doesn’t, not at the moment. It may be low carbon, but it certainly isn’t clean, as the £120 billion ( and rapidly rising) costs of cleaning up the Sellafield site demonstrates. A cost so large that the “low-cost electricity” argument used to justify it’s build are proven to be false- the electricity wasn’t cheap, it was very expensive, the bill was just deferred until end-of-life.
Right now, nuclear power plants use fission, which creates energy by splitting atoms — the science at the center of the blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And "right now*” neither does fusion.
It’s your reading comprehension that’s in doubt, not my knowledge of fission vs fusion.
I agree that the article is wrong on that point. It was still objectively dishonest to make a comment about how nuclear power is unclean without mentioning either fission or fusion specifically. Your comment was begging for a caveat or some sort of “but.”
There is no indication at all that nuclear fusion is going to create harmful byproducts in the same way that fission does, and so make a comment that criticizes “nuclear power” as a whole is a very stupid thing to do overall.
I’ll also point out that the whole basis for your above comment was to cherry-pick one of the very worst examples of fission energy out there. Look up any modern plant, it’s cost per kilowatt hour, and it’s waste disposal procedure. A single poorly-designed nuclear power plant that predates the Kennedy admin doesn’t move the needle on fission power’s overall efficacy.
I’m worried about nuclear because I have worked in enough large organisations with managers that will do everything to cover this ass, so as long as humans are in the mix disasters will happen.
However I reckon nuclear fission also hasn’t had a fair shake. Not nearly enough research has gone into making quality reactors that minimise the after effects and make them safer to run.
The worst part is, no matter how safe and clean they are run now, we have no way to make sure that the people running them in 20 years will be as careful. Also, the safer they are, the less people will pay attention to minor shit that adds up.
Clean and expensive are different things. Sure, it produces waste that has been expensive to contain (though it shouldn’t be), but it is contained. Meanwhile most other alternatives produce waste that is not contained and they don’t pay for that. Nuclear fission is still clean, regardless of if it’s the cheapest option.
Though it’s also worth pointing out that Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear site and has operated since the 40’s and suffered the disaster in 1957 when reactor design, nuclear safety and safe handling were in their infancy, and the world was just starting to explore harnessing nuclear power generation.
And also to be more relevant to the subject of the article; this is one of the reasons why fusion should be being researched, much lower chance of problems arising from waste/risk of meltdown etc.
Fusion isn’t fission, it could provide relatively cheap and clean nuclear power.
Right now, nuclear power plants use fission, which creates energy by splitting atoms — the science at the center of the blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And right now, neither does fusion.
I find it hard to imagine a future where fusion power would be cheap. The reactors will most likely be highly complex, with very expensive materials and lots of custom parts. Fission reactors are much simpler and even they have become too expensive to run without subsidies. ITER is supposed to cost 22 billion, but the US DOE estimates it will be closer to 65 billion. And ITER is a tiny test reactor that will still draw energy from the grid while running. If we ever get a fusion reactor that can actually produce energy, it’s going to be so much bigger and more complex than ITER. And it will have a maximum output and operating life, so a finite amount of energy it can produce during its lifetime. Divide the cost for R&D and construction by the amount of energy produced, and it will most likely come out as much more than solar/wind + storarge.
I’m personally quite interested in Helions design of fusion reactor, whilst I don’t necessarily think they’ll be the first to achieve a design viable of continuous operation, I think the insights gained from the much more complex and expensive “tradition” fusion reactors will hopefully help inform their design and make something viable for smaller scale cheaper operation that could be rolled out on a grander scale.
One thing that is apparent with energy tech is that it always starts out expensive and typically goes down in price due to wide adoption and large scale production.
Re the issues with operating life, etc; there are similar issues with almost every option whether solar/wind etc
Obviously either way we’re going to run into issues with large scale energy storage. Here’s hoping Sodium batteries provide some effective respite for that in the near future.
As a counter point, fission power did not really get cheaper once the initial difficulties were worked out. They are still highly complex machines that require a lot of engineering, custom parts and precision manufacturing. The same is true for fusion reactors, we still don’t have the technology to build one that actually produces power.
By comparison, solar and wind are pretty low-tech, so it’s easier to reduce cost by scaling up production and using automation.
Here’s hoping Sodium batteries provide some effective respite for that in the near future.
Yes, I have my hopes up for that one as well. Lithium-Ion was never meant to be cheap, it only got more affordable due to the massive scale of production, but it still uses expensive chemistry. If we could apply the same scale of production to a battery technology that uses cheaper materials and maybe less complicated processes, it would be a huge win.
upliftingnews
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.