> There are many chemical plants synthesizing chemicals in large quantities: ammonia, ethanol, etc.

There sure are. Zero of them, however, produce gasoline or kerosene from air.

Many, many substances cannot be produced in chemical plants currently.

.

> Until 10 years ago, the cheapest primary fuel was all fossil fuel based

It still is, by leagues. The only reason that isn't showing up in the market is a blend of tax and subsidy (which I agree with.)

Notice what they use on the ocean, where there aren't laws.

.

> making synthetic fuels from fossil fuels is simply a loss in efficiency.

This would be true if anyone had ever actually made it work at scale.

We're much earlier in that process than you seem to believe. The processes that people are talking about are things you can demonstrate in a beaker. These are not things that have even been industrialized at small scale, let alone at large scale.

There's decades of work involved in figuring something like that out. You don't just go "here's the money, build one."

It might be a good idea to watch some of those old Nova specials about Percy Lavon Julian, one of the greatest American chemists in history. Not only are the social angles interesting - he was a black man in the 1950s, but also a source of great wealth to an American dynasty, so you had various factions of old white people fighting over whether or not to be racist - but also his story is crucially informative here.

Mr Julian did invent and discover some plastics and other synthetics, yes, but that wasn't his important work.

His important work was taking "yeah this should be possible" and turning into "yes, we can do this cheaply at scale."

The reason he was so valuable is that that is much, much more difficult than the primary research.

I agree, the primary research has been done.

The things that people are bringing up aren't even the best examples; MIT's solar trees from 2002 do rings around this stuff in efficiency and productivity both per pound construction and per acre construction, and can be built relatively easily from already commercialized parts.

The problem is, once we're done being Cory Doctorow and being blown away by what should be possible, someone has to actually sit down and do the hard work of figuring out how to do it at scale, and then raising the money to do so, and then building several generations of factory until they get it right.

And yes, this will get done, sure.

But there's a /time/ /limit/ here.

Climate change is already putting island nations underwater, putting salt into major city aquifers, has been forcing the Army to relocate Louisianans for 30 years and now it's four states. Our water situation is getting to states suing each other and talking about piping seawater into Middle America to keep lakes wet.

I love the process you're describing, and I agree that it will eventually succeed, but I do not believe there is any realistic chance it will succeed in time for this specific challenge.

.

> instead of raging at people

(sigh)

.

> your own definition of "real"

"Has existed" is the common, dictionary definiton of real.

Why aren't vampires real? They haven't existed yet.

Why isn't strong AI real, even though it seems like it should be possible given the simulation argument? It hasn't existed yet.

Why aren't consumer jetpacks real, even though working jetpacks have been on demo for 100 years? Nobody's made them yet.

You know that 30 foot tall robot that some guy in Japan made for a TV show? Why isn't the American response to it real, even though we have all the same technology that one guy in a garage has? Because nobody's made it yet.

Why isn't a man with one son's daughter real, even though he can have children? Because knowing that something is possible doesn't make it real.

It's very strange to me that you think this is somehow "my definition."

.

> its not "not real" in the same way perpetual motion is not real.

I never said anything about perpetual motion.