5 ms·

FWIW, “This isn’t solving your CO2 problem,” he said. ”I’m taking CO2 out of the air, you burn it and you put the CO2 back. So it’s carbon neutral. I’m not goi

by smaili 10y ago

FWIW, “This isn’t solving your CO2 problem,” he said. ”I’m taking CO2 out of the air, you burn it and you put the CO2 back. So it’s carbon neutral. I’m not going to reverse 400 ppm of CO2. But you’re not going to use any more stuff out of the ground.”

frederikvs 10y ago
Except that we could a) store the alcohol that's produced, or b) find a way to convert the alcohol or biomass into something else (e.g. plastics).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  ethanol->polyethylene is already commercialized. (A Brazilian chemical company markets it as a green product http://www.braskem.com/site.aspx/Im-greenTM-Polyethylene http://www.braskem.com/site.aspx/Im-greenTM-Polyethylene )
evunveot 10y ago
I think he's selling it short. Imagine if all 1 billion+ cars used this fuel instead of diesel/gasoline. Even if all the carbon ultimately ends up as CO2 again eventually, at any given moment there would be a whole lot of it temporarily sequestered in fuel tanks. The "base load" of atmospheric CO2 would be lower. I don't know enough chemistry or climate science to estimate whether the amount of carbon in ~5 billion gallons of alcohol-based fuel, when removed from the atmosphere, would have a significant effect on climate change. But it sure seems like a lot of carbon.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Given that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere includes the output of over 100 years of industrial world-wide burning of petroleum and coal, then no I don't think the amonut of carbon that could be sequestered in current fuel inventories would make a significant difference. Unless you stockpile decades worth of fuel.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    Yeah, but it's a hundred years of industrial burn which was growing at an (approximately) exponential rate; the most recent burn has a much, much larger impact than the burn in 1916.
  - perilunar 10y ago
    But the current level is not ALL the output of over 100 years of burning petroleum and coal — a lot of it has been re-absorbed by plants and the sea.

by smaili 10y ago

frederikvs 10y ago

Except that we could a) store the alcohol that's produced, or b) find a way to convert the alcohol or biomass into something else (e.g. plastics).

maxerickson 10y ago
ethanol->polyethylene is already commercialized. (A Brazilian chemical company markets it as a green product http://www.braskem.com/site.aspx/Im-greenTM-Polyethylene http://www.braskem.com/site.aspx/Im-greenTM-Polyethylene )

evunveot 10y ago

I think he's selling it short. Imagine if all 1 billion+ cars used this fuel instead of diesel/gasoline. Even if all the carbon ultimately ends up as CO2 again eventually, at any given moment there would be a whole lot of it temporarily sequestered in fuel tanks. The "base load" of atmospheric CO2 would be lower. I don't know enough chemistry or climate science to estimate whether the amount of carbon in ~5 billion gallons of alcohol-based fuel, when removed from the atmosphere, would have a significant effect on climate change. But it sure seems like a lot of carbon.

ams6110 10y ago
Given that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere includes the output of over 100 years of industrial world-wide burning of petroleum and coal, then no I don't think the amonut of carbon that could be sequestered in current fuel inventories would make a significant difference. Unless you stockpile decades worth of fuel.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Yeah, but it's a hundred years of industrial burn which was growing at an (approximately) exponential rate; the most recent burn has a much, much larger impact than the burn in 1916.
- perilunar 10y ago
  But the current level is not ALL the output of over 100 years of burning petroleum and coal — a lot of it has been re-absorbed by plants and the sea.