>>10195823 (LB)

>We already came to the conclusion long ago that we would move during this time to effectively do just that - collapse the government, kill pretty much everyone in politics, and convene a constitutional convention to re-form the nation.

What's this WE shit, KimoSabe?

No, WE Americans were not, and will not collapse the government. That's what the pantifas want to do.

And the Constitution is just fine, TYVM, WE don't need a new Constitution.

Trump and Q haven't presented the American people with the option of overthrowing the government; take your militia BS elsewhere.

>>10195942

Because it's not low cost.

It takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the energy the ethanol would provide.

It's like that old trick of electrolizing water to produce hydrogen and oxygen, then burning the hydrogen for fuel. Any high school chemistry student can tell you, with an equation to back it up, that you can't violate the conservation of energy, and that more energy is used to electrolize the water than burning the hydrogen produces.

>>10196037

Wassa matter, Big Mike?

Barry won't blow you anymore?

>>10196140

Wow!

It costs $50K to chop off a dick, and add boobs, but only $24K to add a dick and flatten the boobs?

I'm in the wrong profession, should have become a surgeon like my Mom wanted.

>>10196162

I know, but what is missing is the quote in the article: ​“We could couple the electrochemical process of CO2-to-ethanol conversion using our catalyst to the electric grid and take advantage of the low-cost electricity available from renewable sources like solar and wind during off-peak hours.”

Like a government liberal employee, he thinks that solar and wind power are low cost, if not practically free. And you and I know that's not true.

E.g., it costs $15 million to build and erect a 25 MW windmill, that might last 20 years. At optimum winds, it costs more to produce that wind energy than the electricity from coal, gas, or oil, not counting the energy used to build the thing and maintain it.

>>10196180

I don't deny such a catylitic process has some useful applications, such as for ships, submarines, and space, but it's not practical, economically as a large scale, commercial production.

>>10196443

Nadler's fart.