• keepthepace@tarte.nuage-libre.fr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        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.

        • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

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

            • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 days ago

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

                • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  18 days ago

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

                  • RockBottom@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    18 days ago

                    What does unburned fuel do to the atmosphere? And is coal, gas and oil in the ground harmful (being unburned fuel)?

        • skibidi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          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.