Wait so the argument is: "There exists the possibility of corruption, so we should discount the opportunity to research further??"
I understand the trepidation for fear of greenwashing. But it's just that, a fear. Until you have evidence of wrong doing why trample on possible world saving research?
As for the above posters second rebuttal, is the argument: "This proccess has been done in the lab before, so this company couldn't have possibly found a more efficient process for doing the same thing?" Isn't this how every incremental step in efficiency is gained? Isn't it a good sign that the process is already known and proven, and so all this company has to do is make it more efficient?
Every new battery chemistry is given front page service, all the while everyone knows there's a slim chance in hell they'll ever be market viable. Shouldn't we be investing in tech that is already proven? Not wild moon shot ideas?
To your first point, it's like wringing out a sponge to continue soaking up water. A sponge saturated with water still has the ability to soak up more water, just not the capacity. The issue isn't storing the water, we can do that in buckets (and in the earth in the case of CO2), the issue is collecting it in the first place.
To your second point, we need to find a way to sequester CO2, not simply stop generating anymore. It's also more complicated than 1 MWh generated by solar = 1 MWh generated by coal, there's a time dimension, among other complications, to it as well. If we produce more solar energy during the day than we use, we can turn that towards capturing CO2.
It's going to take work, but if we can sequester more CO2 than we generate, than we can ostensibly reverse climate change, or at least mitigate it.
This is the very definition of survivor bias. Just because being afraid of the dark used to be evolutionarily benefitial, doesn't mean we need to continue being afraid.
I understand your point about the (theoretical) equal split between styles, so why close one or the other.
But I think you've landed on choosing your own way, when really you should try and match the vocal tone of the other person. After all the point of communicating is to get the other person receptive to your point.
And this goes both ways, I think overly perky and chipper people need to understand introverts and low-energy communicators, and match their tone as well.
I think you're right it's more the shade that helps the plants than the reduced temp. But there is a reduction in temp caused by the plants which help the solar panels be more efficient. It's a symbiotic relationship.
It does depend on the crop and how much light the specific plant requires.
I understand the trepidation for fear of greenwashing. But it's just that, a fear. Until you have evidence of wrong doing why trample on possible world saving research?
As for the above posters second rebuttal, is the argument: "This proccess has been done in the lab before, so this company couldn't have possibly found a more efficient process for doing the same thing?" Isn't this how every incremental step in efficiency is gained? Isn't it a good sign that the process is already known and proven, and so all this company has to do is make it more efficient?
Every new battery chemistry is given front page service, all the while everyone knows there's a slim chance in hell they'll ever be market viable. Shouldn't we be investing in tech that is already proven? Not wild moon shot ideas?