seedanrun t1_j5kjfpk wrote

Exactly! We can probably fund coal PREVETION for around $25 per ton (ie spend 50% more to use an alternate power source).

The numbers just don't support carbon capture - though I am not against spending on more carbon capture research to keep looking for a 100x more efficient method.


seedanrun t1_j59b947 wrote

>About 0.1% of carbon removal — around 2.3 million tonnes per year — is performed by new technologies.

So 99.9% of that 2 Billion tons is just nature doing it's thing (like forests growing).

We would need to ramp up our technological carbon capture 100,000% to cancel production.

Burning one ton of coal produces a bit over two tons of CO2 (because oxygen is heavier than carbon). Whole sale coal costs about $50 a ton. Current carbon capture is about $600 per ton. So currently we would be spending $1,200 to capture coal that cost $50 to burn.

Prevention of coal use is definitely the smart investment currently.

Still worth researching capture, but we need new creative techniques that can increase cost effectiveness about 100 times before they will start having any real life application.


seedanrun t1_j2f2f99 wrote

Also with no atmosphere your angle of incident is not important.

You could put a rotating panel on the moons north or south pole and have continuous light year round.


seedanrun t1_itckhic wrote

>The weirdness is that dark matter doesn't interact electromagnetically (although neutrinos don't do that either)

How do we know that Dark Matter is not just a lot of free floating neutrinos? This seems like too obvious an answer so I assume we have a reason.

EDIT: Never mind, I found it on Google.
What rules neutrinos out of the running for dark matter is that in the Standard Model, they are considered “hot” particles, meaning they travel at speeds close to the speed of light. For a particle to constitute dark matter, it must be “cold,” or travel slowly compared to light.


seedanrun t1_isb43vg wrote

There is a huge number of useful money skills and techniques, but they vary depending on how you invest and your life style. The basics that class hits are the most important and universal- that class seems exactly what is needed.

And the guy teaching it IS a successful retired wealthy person. I think having someone who actually lived it is key which would be hard to find for every school.


seedanrun t1_is965nr wrote

We need some classes that teach about credit cards, dept, mortgages and credit scores in high school to start. And those need to be updated every 3 years.

We also need some classes about investing, passive income, and long term career planning - but I don't really think schools can teach this - I mean, what % of high school teachers really understand it?


seedanrun t1_is95u25 wrote

I think the point is that wealthy people are more likely to move to an area with good schools and jobs - while less wealthy are more likely to stay put.

That said - their conclusion that you can help the poor by giving them more access to better area does not seem the true solution. If your parents understand credit cards, mortgages and investing - then they will pass that information on to their children. And if your parents do NOT understand those thing -they are a struggle to learn by trial and error on your own. I honestly thing having financially wise parents can not be replaced by going to a good school. They don't teach financial wisdom at school.