The magnitude of negative responses to this comment is very encouraging.
Not because I agree with my sibling comments, but because I strongly agree with the parent, making me think my org and I are much earlier than I thought. :)
This isn’t really an evaluation of the company, just explaining how they had to use different financing approaches as they grew and derisked their technology (which makes sense).
Compared to some other new approaches for getting clean base load power, it seems like they’ve been pretty grounded and methodical.
Most people here would be good homeschooling parents.
This site doesn’t represent the world at large.
I was personally homeschooled, and while I ended up with a positive outcome, I cannot say the same thing for any of my peers (other kids I met through homeschooling groups.) There were many children that, in retrospect, were suffering from abuse or neglect that the structure of school could have prevented, or at least a mandatory reporter could have caught.
For more anecdotes, take a look at r/homeschoolrecovery (which is nearly 1/6th the size of r/homeschooling.) Many of the stories there are so gut-wrenchingly bleak. Any margin improvement in educational outcomes hardly seems worth it given some of the pain described there.
>> You don't repeatedly recompress along the pipeline length
Yes, you do. That is the primary purpose of transmission compressor stations. You may just lose a few psi per mile or something, but over the course of 100s of miles..
This is factually incorrect and has the direction of causality wrong.
Enclosed combustors are _more_ efficient than flares, and can be tested to show that they achieve complete combustion of methane (unlike flares, which do not combust all methane.) Because of this efficiency delta, enclosed combustors were introduced to adhere to new air quality regulations.
I.e. regulators forced companies to install them to improve their emissions; they aren't being installed to hide emissions.
"Enclosed flaring is, in truth, probably less efficient than a typical flare. It’s better than venting, but going from a flare to an enclosed flare or a vapor combustor is not an improvement in reducing emissions", based on vibes from a former regulator from the linked article, is incorrect. E.g. see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679082...
On industrial scales, CO2 is commonly removed with reusable scrubber chemicals, referred to as a group as amines. The amine acts as a CO2 solvent, removing the CO2 from the bulk gas. The 'rich' amine is then cycled to a separate location in the process where it is heated up, causing the CO2 to bubble out of solution, regenerating the amine for reuse, etc.
I don't see any reason in principal why this can't be miniaturized, but it would be a challenging engineering problem.
Not because I agree with my sibling comments, but because I strongly agree with the parent, making me think my org and I are much earlier than I thought. :)