Yeah, no idea why. Seems like a basic character substitution algorithm using a basic one time pad scheme.
I'm not super deep into cryptography, because it's a whole field unto itself with experts that can make your head spin in seconds. But this "novel" approach (given the description in this article which might be flawed), reads as neither novel nor secure.
I can't access the DOI linked though, so I guess I'll wait for more reliable coverage.
We need to research it to know more. That's what this funding is for.
The reason green energy is usually brought into the conversation is that while many sequestration strategies require nearly zero energy inputs, many do. What's the point of cutting into the effectiveness of the solutions by emitting more greenhouse gasses? At least in my case the sentiment here is genuine, no alterior motives, it just makes sense. Can't say the same for everyone, but big projects often make for strange bedfellows.
Green energy has had steady funding and advances for 30 years. Sequestration is largely still relegated to lifecycle studies and truly needs testing.
There are more, but you get the gist. There's a familiar pattern in these studies and interviews with scientists and academics- we need negative emissions, and every day we don't have them we have even more work to do in the same time span. At the same time, we need to study this further because geoengineering will likely have far reaching impacts beyond what we primarily need.
Some of these projects are as simple as reforestation and/or biochar sequestration into rich soils. Some are moonshots like molecular pumps and nanoparticles lattices (charmingly being nicknamed the giant vacuum solution by MSM today). But over and over those studying it seem to agree we need more research and investment. That's literally what is being announced in this article and everyone is acting like this money was ripped away from someone building a huge green energy plant. Realistically this isn't how funding for projects and research works.
We need to stop fighting "green energy OR sequestration. It NEEDS to be AND. Trust the scientists who are asking for this.
Copying this from an earlier comment thread on the same topic.
Actually this solves a very important problem. If we stop all pollution and carbon emissions today the earth will still be heated up significantly for the next thousand years or so. Enough that life will be more than uncomfortable, we'll have massive water shortages, widespread desertification, and wholesale extinctions of many plants and animals.
We need carbon sequestration if we want to control the damage already done.
By definition it isn't carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn't negative after a full lifecycle study. Lifecycle studies are somewhat contentious as you might imagine since they try to encompass so much in one number, but generally studies agree that the major proposals are strongly negative.
Actually this solves a very important problem. If we stop all pollution and carbon emissions today the earth will still be heated up significantly for the next thousand years or so. Enough that life will be more than uncomfortable, we'll have massive water shortages, widespread desertification, and wholesale extinctions of many plants and animals.
We need carbon sequestration if we want to control the damage already done.
How can you possibly say "Nothing has changed"? Material Science has come so far in the last 5 years, let alone the past 30 years, that I'm certain the problems experienced by other efforts will be quickly addressed
Now whether or not that means this design will be immediately commercially viable is an entirely different issue, but we can't advance forward without doing research to find out.
Kata1yst @ Kata1yst @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 323Joined 2 yr. ago
My list too! Excession in particular is a masterpiece.