But, as far as I remember, major contributor to carbon emissions are not poor villages, but jet sets and their factories in poor villages exploiting the work of poor villagers who have no say about their air quality lest they lose their jobs like they lost their means to sustain themselves from farming. Indeed, just not flying for fun and not selling the oil and coal that do not really belong to them would be so much more technological than trying to get grants for things they do not understand (and waste them traveling the world on planes telling everyone they should invest in it too only to then burn the rest in taxes used to support oilgascoal industry directly or not). When you show perpetum mobile here it is totally relevant - that’s how greenwashing works in terms of economy on every level, no matter what technology is being praised.

How about I want to have my inference process to negate error bound to my priors?

In object oriented onthology, to know is him is to be him.

That’s essentially how many gases are made from mixtures, like notrogen or oxygen. Showing this as something new tells a lot about author’s uderstanding. Carbon capture is not about making entirely new tech, it’s optimization, and that’s where startups suck at everything except for getting and then wasting cash.

Yeah, I wanted to move to Alberta many years ago to join your university and have fun with bitumen. But I’m in Finland now, so winter is ok, and now summers are intense and hot everywhere. I don’t know why exactlt anybody would crop grow these grains south of here, where other things thrive. Leave hardy grasses for arctic steppes.

Malting it for base malt is probably not worth the effort indeed (kind of weird that there are a few small-scale enterprises around where I live who try to make small batches of malt - and it’s base malt. Of course it’s inferior to large scale, sadly, I had sad experience trying to use super-local. Why don’t they see the real market potential for weird stuff? Maybe I should take that space when I set the process?), but there are limitless potential specialty varieties you can try. Roast it differently? Skip toasting altogether and use it asap to see what happens? Reproduce some historical process? So much fun (probably).

But at the same time remember, that scaling (both ways) is the toughest task in chemical technology. Small masher has very different heat and matter exchange properties than large one, just take it into account. Expect efficiency to drop 2x or even more on first try.

I have similar situation (but right now I have ~20 kg of oats, there are other stuffs around too, I just happened to take oats), so I’m trying to build some decent malting equipment. Unfortunately, doing it outdoors in winter is sad enterprise, but I’m totally just giving it a try when I can! (Doing it indoors would be either stinky or loud, and I already have too many microbiological stuff going in same space) I do not believe I’ll lose much except for conversion rate and sugar content, but might discover some new flavor tones. When I’m done, I’ll be posting here and trying to share the product.

So I urge you to do the same!

There is no reason to expect that something will not ferment well just because it was not purebred for brewing. Even random yeasts mostly yield good results. Well, yeast is much more definitive in final profile and you CAN screw up by using some really stinky or low fermenting yeast. Grain, on the other hand, is just yeast food and grain flavour mostly (yes, there are other things to fine tune, but first order approximations is what we should care about in experimentation). Does it smell and taste good? Then go for it!

What if we apply negative pressure?

Vangers 2.0

I make and sell mucrocloning kits in anticipation to see this happen