science

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago* (9 children)

But that has the same emissions issue as the current fuel

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

That's a whole different debate. I tend to agree that they are less ideal, that their proponents say, but they are actually renewable. They don't add durably CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil sources. It is a very different thing. The CO2 they emit is part of a cycle. Ideally, that's also a type of emission that we cut, but it is possible to include them in a sustainable society.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Biofuel is a dead-end technology. Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel, while also avoiding wasting all the extra nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen - some of which are scarce) needed for the plant to grow that give nothing in terms of energy storage and must be recaptured.

A bunch of solar panels and some direct air -> methanol plants uses far less land than corn fields for bioethanol, while also providing easy avenues to switch energy from feeding the grid to filling the tanks depending on conditions.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago

Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel

I have a very hard time believing it to be true, but I am always opened to an unexpected good news. Do you have a specific tech/source in mind for that claim?

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

CO2 is not the only emission and pollution in the high atmosphere is even more damaging than on the ground.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Which pollution are you thinking of?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

Well incomplete combustion, which is unavoidable, produces carbon monoxide, VOCs, soot, and unburned fuel. All which would be dumped into the high atmosphere.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

I know these are bad for human health, but are they bad for the environment in these quantities and at this altitude?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Unburned fuel is an order of magnitude worse for the atmosphere than CO2. Plus you think only humans are poisoned by these things?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 point 2 months ago

Unburned fuel is also an order of magnitude less in terms of volume than burned fuel. It is also something that's solvable by better combustion and optimized engines.

Humans are 'poisoned' by these things in cities where they live close to thousands of vehicles that pass a few meters away. Inside sometimes a city where this gas accumulates.

And they are not poisoned per se. They lose years of life expectancy and they get preventable diseases. An animal population regulated by predation probably does not notice these differences in life expectancy.

Don't get me wrong, that's still a problem, but that's not an ecological and climatic problem and something that can be addressed after we've finished our transition out of the fossil fuel.