3 ms·

It's worth noting that renewable also includes burning biomass, so that doesn't mean it's necessarily mean it's clean energy

bufferoverflow 7y ago
Burning biomass, assuming it's grown by them, is carbon neutral. I wonder if they filter their exhausts or just release the particles into the air.
- michaelt 7y ago
  You might enjoy articles like "The EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral. It’s Actually a Lot More Complicated" [1] and "Congress Says Biomass Is Carbon-Neutral, but Scientists Disagree" [2] TLDR: If you chop down an acre of forest, burn the wood and replant, it takes 40-100 years to capture the amount of carbon released. And that's assuming the company doesn't harvest the forest again during that period - which they likely will, as doing so is a key part of their business. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burni... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-biomass-is-carbon-neutral-but-scientists-disagree/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-bio...
tomp 7y ago
Renewable, clean, carbon-neutral... these are just PR buzzwords. To actually improve the world, we need to consider actual effects of different energy production methods on the environment (and society). Personally, I prefer nuclear, even though it's definitely not renewable, and possibly not even "clean". Also, I consider it very likely that oil will remain a better portable power source than batteries for some applications - it can never be clean, but it can be renewable and carbon-neutral (just like burning wood/making paper). Wind, hydro, solar - obviously these are all quite good (though they still have some impact on the environment), but unfortunately not every part of the world can utilise all, or any, of them. ======================================== Edit to answer u/Angostura - HN is rate-limiting my replies: Sure, but nuclear isn't renewable (but still good), and carbon-neutral is more a description of production method than of the goodness or badness of an energy source. Oil is just a chemical. Just as you can burn it (reduce it to CO2 and water), you can synthesise it. Just because we don't know how or can't do it efficiently, doesn't mean we won't figure it out in the next few decades. So we could for example pave the Sahara with solar panels, use the energy to produce oil carbon-neutrally, export it through the world... Many different options, really depends on which direction the technology and politics will take!
- Angostura 7y ago
  > Renewable, clean, carbon-neutral... these are just PR buzzwords. Renewable and carbon neutral really aren't. They have quite precise meaning. I'm not sure how you can say that oil (assuming you don't mean vegetable oil) can be renewable or carbon neutral - at least not over period shorter than geological epochs

bufferoverflow 7y ago

Burning biomass, assuming it's grown by them, is carbon neutral. I wonder if they filter their exhausts or just release the particles into the air.

michaelt 7y ago
You might enjoy articles like "The EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral. It’s Actually a Lot More Complicated" [1] and "Congress Says Biomass Is Carbon-Neutral, but Scientists Disagree" [2] TLDR: If you chop down an acre of forest, burn the wood and replant, it takes 40-100 years to capture the amount of carbon released. And that's assuming the company doesn't harvest the forest again during that period - which they likely will, as doing so is a key part of their business. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burni... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-biomass-is-carbon-neutral-but-scientists-disagree/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-bio...

tomp 7y ago

Renewable, clean, carbon-neutral... these are just PR buzzwords. To actually improve the world, we need to consider actual effects of different energy production methods on the environment (and society). Personally, I prefer nuclear, even though it's definitely not renewable, and possibly not even "clean". Also, I consider it very likely that oil will remain a better portable power source than batteries for some applications - it can never be clean, but it can be renewable and carbon-neutral (just like burning wood/making paper). Wind, hydro, solar - obviously these are all quite good (though they still have some impact on the environment), but unfortunately not every part of the world can utilise all, or any, of them. ======================================== Edit to answer u/Angostura - HN is rate-limiting my replies: Sure, but nuclear isn't renewable (but still good), and carbon-neutral is more a description of production method than of the goodness or badness of an energy source. Oil is just a chemical. Just as you can burn it (reduce it to CO2 and water), you can synthesise it. Just because we don't know how or can't do it efficiently, doesn't mean we won't figure it out in the next few decades. So we could for example pave the Sahara with solar panels, use the energy to produce oil carbon-neutrally, export it through the world... Many different options, really depends on which direction the technology and politics will take!

Angostura 7y ago
> Renewable, clean, carbon-neutral... these are just PR buzzwords. Renewable and carbon neutral really aren't. They have quite precise meaning. I'm not sure how you can say that oil (assuming you don't mean vegetable oil) can be renewable or carbon neutral - at least not over period shorter than geological epochs