Science Memes

12351 readers

3436 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

398

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 56 points 5 days ago (3 children)

That small red bulb counteracts the entropy argument because you bring energy (and quite a lot of I recall) into the system.

Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.

I don't think there'd be anyone left alive to be sad in that case...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

That's sad

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The wider issue is you have to generate that energy, and you have to be able to capture more carbon than that generation released.

As I understand it doesn't at all. This is why it's seen as analagous to a perpetual motion machine, it's an endless chain of power plants capturing each others carbon to no end.

You could use solar of course, but then why generate anything with fossil fuels just to capture the carbon with solar? Just use solar.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago

Because we still need to bring CO2 levels down even if we stop burning fossil fuel.

And then we'll probably need to burn fossil fuel to keep them at the right level, since we are in a capitalistic society and we're never going to be able to shutdown the CO2 collectors if they are ever built.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What I mean by entropy is that we burn fossil fuels (low entropy) and release CO2 into the atmosphere (high entropy), so it takes a lot more energy and effort to remove CO2 than simply not burning fossil fuels.

Clearly laws of physics work against us when we try to remove a relatively low concentration gas from a planet-wide system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Next time you write a scientific publication, /s, make sure to have it reviewed by at least 2 Nobel Prize ! 😋
(thanks for the explanation ... it was not clear at all)