• tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral (as long as the energy source is renewable like the sun). Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was. It’s a much much better option than digging up oil.

    On top of that, there are currently no likely possibilities of replacing gasoline for things like planes. So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      20 minutes ago

      Well, it shouldn’t be carbon neutral… It should used to get carbon out of the atmosphere and into a less damaging substance.

      Carbon capture does not replace getting rid of our dependency on burning fossil fuels.

      We wouldn’t get back the same amount that we are burning anyway. So this approach is worse, because dumb people think it would save us, without us changing the way we produce energy.

      It is worse, because it is a distraction from actually doing something.

    • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was.

      Except it won’t be. Combustion is not a perfect CxHy O2 > CO2 + H2O reaction. Theres a bunch of other side reactions happening, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. There are lots of challenges to continuing to utilize hydrocarbon fuels, especially in mobile/small scale applications where you can’t clean the exhaust stream.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Except it won’t be.

        None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

        What chemical reaction gets more carbon out than it puts in?
        (Where do these new carbon atoms come from, fusion?)

        If anything, those other products include non-gaseous compounds which sequester the carbon from the fuel into a solid resulting in a net-negative amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

        Those side-products are not good, I’m not saying otherwise, but they are not additional carbon.

        • B-TR3E@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

          Right. Because none of it is a fucking coal mine. Which is the only thing that can provide “carbon output”. Except a diamond mine, of course.

    • B-TR3E@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There is no such thing as “carbon neutral”. Nor is there a problem with carbon. You’re talking about carbon dioxide which is as close to carbon as table salt is to chlorine.