Carbon capture does appear to be at best a dead end despite some with good intentions. At worst, an outright con job by malicious mother fuckers.

Occidental says the captured carbon will be stored in rock deep underground, but its website also refers to the company’s use of captured carbon in a process called “enhanced oil recovery.” This involves pushing carbon into wells to force out the hard-to-reach remnants of oil — allowing fossil fuel companies to extract even more from aging oil fields.

I guess we can stop worrying about greenhouse gas and global warming, and go back to unrestricted burning of fossil fuels and an extravagant wasteful lifestyle and economy. Free enterprise, entrepreneurial spirit and high technology have saved us once again,,,.from free enterprise, entrepreneurial spirit and high technology. Isn’t it wonderful?

Let’s go over this again, kids. Combining carbon with oxygen releases energy and produces carbon dioxide. Breaking open those electron bonds and separating the carbon from the oxygen must require AT LEAST the same amount of energy that was released when the original combustion took place, probably more since the reverse process is probably inefficient. (Highly efficient carbon combustion is why we use fossil fuels in the first place.) In addition, the “chemical processes” to extract and capture the carbon, as well as to sequester it geologically must also consume energy, not to mention the energy needed to pump and extract the CO2 (at about 420 ppm in the atmosphere) is enormous. Finally there is the construction of these plants, the materials and energy needed to assemble these plants and bring them together. along with the construction and development. Even if the energy is “free” (remember, neither geothermal, solar or hydro power is free) wouldn’t we be better off just pumping it into the grid so we wouldn’t have to burn fossil at all?

This is the climate equivalent of putting filters on cigarettes.

The methodology and progression of testing has also been detailed reasonably well at least to my untrained eye.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/04/exodus-propulsion-technologies-claims-huge-space-propulsion-breakthrough.html

The experiments to measure the tiny force from the thrust have to be done VERY carefully to eliminate sources of experimental error- you are trying to measure a very small effect in an experimental setup that has high electrical currents.

There is no evidence that he has performed the experiment carefully and has understood and eliminated all possible sources of experimental error. There is no publication from this group that rigorously (and with peer review) demonstrates that all possible effects have been accounted for.

Meanwhile, others that HAVE gone to great lengths to understand and eliminate every possible source of experimental error. They have published in peer reviewed articles.

Their work shows that the purported propulsion simply is not there, and they are able to point to many possible sources of experimental error that could explain the force that Buhler claims to have seen.

This – coupled with the fact it violates conservation laws- makes it a safe bet that this electrostatic propulsion simply is nonsense.

I cannot explain why Buhler would make these wild claims- it makes no sense that a scientist would destroy his credibility in order to get 5 minutes of internet hype… But we have seen that there are those who will do exactly that. I don’t understand it, yet it happens over and over…

In general, when someone making remarkable claims goes to great lengths to repeatedly emphasize they previously worked at NASA it makes me suspicious… the work should stand or fall based on the data, not based on someone’s CV. Yes it appears he did work for NASA, so what? It smells too much like argument based on authority.

If the work was available for thorough peer review, and if it had been replicated in rigorous experiments then I might be interested…

Furthermore, while writers of popular science articles are often notoriously bad at over-hyping claims, it is clear that Buhler is doing all he can to ensure his claims are over-hyped.

Buhler says they commonly measured the forces in milliNewtons, but they prefer to describe the thrust in terms of gravity since that is the ultimate goal of propulsion physics.

That is just stupid… If you have a tiny force then -no matter how small it is- you can find a mass small enough so that it will have a large acceleration when subjected to that force… there is zero value in expressing the results in terms of acceleration… No value UNLESS you want to have headlines proclaiming that ‘Buhler’s propulsion can overcome the Earth’s gravity!!!!’ which is the way many of the pop science articles announced it….

So yeah… don’t buy what he is selling….

The mainstream scientific community is overwhelmingly, and justifiably, skeptical. Buhler himself acknowledges the need for further study. It will clearly take rigorous, third-party research and they must verify the results repeatedly. Although it’s not impossible that Buhler’s team stumbled upon an unknown quirk of physics, it remains an extremely unlikely outcome.

Here’s quite a bit more on it. The math show here is beyond me but you and RL can probably decifer it. The comments section is an interesting read too.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/04/exodus-propulsion-technologies-claims-huge-space-propulsion-breakthrough.html