• @Buffalox
    link
    English
    20
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    This article has waaayyy too much “if this actually worked it could be used for…” and “instead of other methods that don’t work…”. But waaayy to little about the actual validity of the process.

    This is a general trend every fucking time an article claims to have something on CO2 or batteries or global warming. IMO this is probably because the actual idea is bullshit.
    Sorry but my ADD prevented me from reading all that non content crap to see if there were actually anything real to read.

    What if, instead of pumping the carbon dioxide underground, we made something useful from it?

    WOW you’d have to be at least 4 years old to see how brilliant that could be.
    What if instead of having your head up your ass, you at this point had already written at least a teaser about how this actually works?
    99% sure by now, that this is a fucking waste of time.

    Please someone who bothered reading this, inform me if there’s any actual content beneath that load of obvious bullshit.

    Edit: Ah OK there came some almost right after what I quoted, but why the fuck do they think they need to lead with all that meaningless babble?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 days ago

      It’s university press department stuff. That’s always shitty pop-science communication.

      Then again, it works, as people post that to fora, instead of the actual research. And popularity, not quality, of work brings grants.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days ago

      I skimmed most of it, but I’m still not sure what the fuel is. CO2 isn’t particularly useful unless you change it to something else. What’s that something else?