Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org

@freemo @TruthSandwich

You can use electricity, generated via renewable energy sources, to separate the hydrogen from water.

You could also use renewable energy sources to generate electricity so as to melt steel (e.g., to construct solar panels, wind turbines, etc).

The idea of making "fossil" fuels (carbon-based fuels or biofuels) is simply making more of the problem.

"net zero" is basically BS! (a way for industries to avoid responsibility for their CO2 emissions) It's not considering that human activities have already emitted vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, to even begin to start to reduce legacy greenhouse gas emissions, human activities will need to emit zero greenhouse gases and restore the natural carbon sequestration systems such as forests and peat lands.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

To reverse the action would require energy!

The general scientific conclusion is that renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, and thermal is the most practical way to generate electrical energy.

Good luck with your reversible fuel idea.

@TruthSandwich @freemo

And what will you synthesize gasoline from (the source materials)?

What are "(net) carbon-free sources"? I'm reading lots of terms without much substance.

Maybe we could ask the fairies to magic up some "(net) carbon-free sources" for our carbon-based fuels.

@freemo

By "grow" you mean expand. Do you believe that all industries can continue to expand? i.e., economic "growth" - requiring more resources and power. As that is their agenda.

It would seem that the current economic paradigm is based on many unsustainable ideologies.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

>fuels are completely reversable reaction

I'm just going to explain how this point is magical thinking (not practical) and then leave this conversation.

> burn the fuel and you get co2 and water

What fuel are you referring to? (hydrogen fuel has no carbon element)

Most fuels that are used are carbon base fuels (e.g., "fossil" fuels). In the context of solid carbon-based fuels, most of the carbon is emitted as carbon particles (e.g., smoke or the micro-carbon particles that are emitted when liquid or gas carbon-based fuels are burnt).

Whilst in theory any chemical reaction can be reversed. Reversing the chemical reactions that occur when fuels are burnt is not practical (i.e., pie-in-the-sky thinking).

You are aware that the use of fuel is for the energy that is converted into heat (also expansion, thrust, etc). Once that energy has been used (the chemical reaction \ work done) it generally disperses into the environment. The pollution is the byproduct (e.g., carbon particles or carbon dioxide)

You're inferring unpractical ideologies. However, if you had a time machine you could go back in time before the fuel was incinerated. Even better, go back in time before all the coal, oil, forests, etc, were burnt and those actions will have been reversed (not done).

In summary, this article https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020 explains a practical and achievable way to grow food sustainable, restore nature, and help people live a low-ecological impact lifestyle. I realize that using fewer resources and power won't align with many people's agendas. However, that's a real solution, not some ideology based on "completely reversing" the burning of fuels.

The general problem is that technologists, not ecologists, are trying to think of ways to reduce their ecologically degrading activities rather than really thinking about restoring the nature-based solutions (that the industry has degraded & continues to want to degrade. In the name of profit).

@freemo

Can you imagine an economy that had a different primary directive than a profit agenda? For example, what about not-for-profit organizations? The UK's national health service was founded on a health primary directive. "Profit" is merely one idea out of many.

@freemo

"and people must want a thing in order for them to be motivated to sustain the thing"

If people don't want to restore nature, they will be motivated to mitigate climate change.

There are other motivations than money.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

"but overall having a finite amount isnt the top concern"

Have you heard of peak oil?

Have you watched this video? https://youtu.be/-xr9rIQxwj4

@freemo @TruthSandwich

Evidently, when we use a finite resource for fuel, once it's combusted, its usefulness is effectively over.

Whilst we can recycle metals, metal degrades over time. For example, electricity degrades the conductors. That's why electronics eventually malfunction.

Plastics that are made from crude oil can only be recycled a limited number of times. Fundamentally, when plastic is made from crude oil, that product will either one day be microplastic particle pollution or, if it's burnt, air pollution (plastic will degrade until it's not useful. But it's not biodegradable).

@TruthSandwich @freemo

To be clear, my definition of a suitable culture isn't so much a "grid" but more of a localized way to generate power.

How do you think "a grid" can be sustained?

@freemo

"you could grow your own"

I have :)

@freemo

What I meant is that I don't define sustainability within an economic model that has a primary for-profit directive.

For example, most of the solutions to mitigate climate change such as restoring forests and peatlands are not being implemented on scale because no business can make a profit out of those solutions.

Many people perceive mitigating climate change within an economic paradigm (i.e., money). However, the current economy won't mitigate climate change. Call that "defeatest" if you wish. I call it logical. The profit incentive is the wrong incentive to mitigate climate change.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

There is also the point that we have vast amounts of metal in circulation. If we considered metal as a precious resource within a circular economy, we could minimize mining practices.

At the moment, mining is unsustainable because of its scale. The current economy is a resource and power "hungry" system. For example, whilst renewable energy is a way to reduce greenhouse gases, for it to be sustainable, we have to power down some aspects of the economy. But, rather than use what metal is already in circulation, the mining industries are planning on mining metals from the sea bed (more habitat destruction). That evidently can't go on without their being serious consequences.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

It's an interesting challenge. However, the point of sustainability is thinking & developing long-term solutions. Therefore, finite resources and pollution is "off the table".

Sooner or later a system that uses finite resources will either have to find alternatives or try to recycle what it can. In the context of fossil fuels, there isn't anything left that can be reused.

@TruthSandwich @freemo

You do know that there are already non-mined biodegradable solar panels?

@TruthSandwich @freemo

I'm not interested if someone can get rich from the product.

The point is are the resources plentiful, renewable, and biodegradable.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

Nature has done that.

Phytoplankton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

@freemo @TruthSandwich

I haven't researched the specifics. Though I'd be interested to talk to a materials scientist regarding non-metal conductors.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

That's a fair point. If you let the children eat the "hemp" edibles, they will probably start a labor union and demand fair working conditions.

@freemo @TruthSandwich

Do they get to make chocolate edibles out of the "hemp"?