4 ms·
Costs aside, wouldn't replacing carbon emissions with methane be drastically worse? Doing a casual search says that methane is 2000-3000% more potent as a GHG.
by erezyehuda 8y ago
Costs aside, wouldn't replacing carbon emissions with methane be drastically worse? Doing a casual search says that methane is 2000-3000% more potent as a GHG.
- ufo 8y agoI assume the methane would be the fuel, not the byproduct.
- JamesBarney 8y agoI imagine you won't combust 100% of the fuel. So wouldn't it be both.
- rlucas 8y agoPure methane is a bunch of molecules with just one carbon, which simplifies things a bit vs. a cracked and heterogeneous mix of longer chain (10+) molecules. You can incompletely combust a 10-carbon molecule and wind up with other hydrocarbons but if you burn up CH4, you're definitely just getting one CO2.