bazzy

How do you make it conductive?

Hi Everyone Been A while since i have been on this forum. I have been looking at a new starship simulator game upcoming and that has got me thinking about oxygen reclamation in a space scenario. in enclosed spaces like on the ISS they use Lithium Hydroxide to capture and remove co2 while using electrolysis to generate more oxygen. Now I understand that power consumption is an issue with thinking about this, however If you where to capture and separate the C02 from the air then compress it to a liquid under cryogenic temperatures then as a liquid use electrolysis to break it down to Oxygen and carbon monoxide and oxygen then using Cryogenic Distillation separate the Carbon Monoxide from the Oxygen, then compress the Carbon Monoxide to a liquid and perform the same electrolysis process to separate the Carbon from the oxygen, again using Cryogenic Distillation to separate the remaining Carbon Monoxide from the Oxygen for further processing? I may be completely missing the mark with the science here but could that work? I do realize this would be an extremely energy intensive process but if energy was in abundance could this process work?

additionally in some states in like queensland people who have Solar installations are actively discouraged in the way of an additional daily charge for having solar. I have 15Kw solar system at my address and i tend to use the energy hungry appliances during the day while the solar is producing so that i am not pulling power from the grid. I also believe there has been a bit of gaming the system when it comes to power generation too.

I believe there is talk of ramping up Lithium production. However this is drawing opposition too usually from the same groups who like to argue there is no suitable energy storage technologies, despite there being a number of Australian companies developing electrical and thermal storage technologies using investment from overseas. until recently the government has shown little interest.

I seem to be seeing a number of influences who are rejecting the science for climate change on economical grounds whilst at the same time arguing that those who understand the science are "brainwashed". With recent laws being passed in our government requiring a minimum 48% reduction i believe in greenhouse gasses by 2050. I know the target should be 2030 however i believe now there is a direction we will probably be able to hit a higher target quicker. the argument is that the economical hit that will have due to our low contribution to the total around 1.5%. that being said because our (Australia) low population it puts us up near the top of the list with greenhouse gas production and when you consider the effects Australian branded coal has its even worse. that being said i am seeing a lot of armchair experts that seem to be pushing the argument that it is our transition to renewables namely solar that is the cause the sharp increase in power prices on the local market. this i find very interesting especially when you step back and look at the market our recent cost increase in power production has a direct correlation between global coal and gas prices and is compounded by energy producers who where deliberately holding back electricity supply because "it was not profitable enough" to put generates online. so it is a direct result of fossil fuels that our power prices are so expensive. Looking at countries that have either reached or is close to 100% renewable energy they are all at the bottom of the list when it comes cost of energy. namely Norway and Iceland who have power prices i would dream of, so it seems to be a fallacy to argue that renewable energy is more expensive. additionally a very large portion of our Country is sprawling barren desert that would easily house acres and acres of solar power. our country is surrounded in ocean so tidal power generation is an additional option along with wind power all tied in together would easily meet any power generation needs very cheaply. So the question i have to ask is why is there such opposition from the right wing conservative minded people to this transition. I mean kicking and screaming comes to mind. The influence i am thinking of recently quoted what one of our leading climate scientists said and then disagreed with him that we should do something about it claiming that we don't contribute much to the global percentage then claimed it would increase the cost of electricity locally.

it surprises me that there is so many people who are against Solar The financial benefits alone are enough to warrant it, let alone environmental side. I have a 1.5kw system on my roof now and i was getting about $150 per quarter from it, since my partner moving in our power consumption has gone up significantly. and a lot of that usage is during the day so i am actually planing to expand it by 5kw (gradually) over the next 2 years my aim is bringing my power bills down to nothing and being able to enjoy luxuries such as running air conditioning and heating without negative affects on the environment. Power Storage is problematic but it can be overcome I concede gas is better than coal however from where i stand i don't see how replacing one finite resource with another finite resource is economically viable and both produce CO2 so contribute to climate change, it seems very short sited. i am hearing a lot of people including my partner saying Nuclear is a good option however i see that as uneconomical as we lack the infrastructure to implement such an option for example we can't refine the fuel source meaning we have to either build industry to do that or purchase it abroad and when that fuel is used (my understanding is it goes through a purification process as only a small amount of energy from the fuel rods are used) this will also be done abroad and no one wants the nuclear plant built near them. in addition to all this the money put into that technology could be put towards renewable sources.

I just had a conversation with my partner about our energy sources here in Australia There is a particular person in politics here at the moment who is pushing that we should move back to coal power. I was explaining why investing money into coal is a very bad idea, 1. they have to build the coal power for considerably more than solar and wind farms of the same output of the same value 2 the solar and wind options are cheaper implementation and upkeep costs over the long run 3.technologies are already available for storage. and if not there are areas in the northern territory where geothermal power is an option. Basically my partner said he supports the implementation of new coal fired power. Then when i tried to further explain why the running costs are much higher than solar on the count of the cost of fuelling said plants then proceeded to give the facts i got shut down and told "i don't want to hear it" I honestly hate it when people do that but i then later asked "are you Conservative aligned i got the response of "i am Common sense aligned" implying my fact based position is nonsense. how do you deal with this sort of ignorance? fyi the cost of power here is due to the partial privatisation of the power grid

i think i am just going to stop debating him he is saying that my position that is based on the general scientific consensus is "full of holes" then just repeats his argument.

yeah, i guess. he is really making a jack of himself to be honest because now he has jumped to another thread and started arguing with me that Same Sex Marriage leads to polygamy

This seems to be the most appropriate place to put this one, I have been confronted by a someone who from what I can tell is a conservative Christian, he places the claim that transgender people are not a thing and that they are assigned their gender at birth and that human gender is exclusively for reproduction and hormones and sexuality and psychological factors are irrelevant. I provided a paper from the Harvard University on the subject, it shows the issue to transcend basic reproduction, yet when I provide that all I get in reply is that I am wrong because doctors assign gender at birth and that even surgery won't change that. I ask them to back that up with evidence of the same quality to that I provide, but all I get back is "I am right because it is the TRUTH." How do you put your position across to an argument like that? he could not possibly have read the paper i provided because it was long and it took me nearly 35 minutes to read it and I knew what it was about and I am a fast reader he, however, took less than 5 minutes. Is this a situation where it's just a matter of giving up? also, this debate is being played out on a public forum (twitter) so i feel compelled to correct him.