3 ms·
> but it absolutely still produces lots of CO2. It is definitely not cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 95% or 99%! The important difference is that the carbon
by laurencerowe 5y ago
> but it absolutely still produces lots of CO2. It is definitely not cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 95% or 99%! The important difference is that the carbon is not from fossil sources. This is vital! But CO2 is still being emitted!
Isn't the presumption here that otherwise the CO2 would have been emitted anyway when the waste decomposed in landfill? So using it as fuel doesn't emit additional CO2 beyond the energy used processing it.
- ac29 5y agoLandfilling organic waste leads to methane forming during decomposition, which is a substantially more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
- gameswithgo 5y agoMore potent but shorter lasting, by a lot. Once CO2 is in the atmosphere you are stuck with it for centuries.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoYes, but CH₄ degrades into CO₂ and water (in the presence of oxygen).
- IgorPartola 5y agoShh. You are going to spoil HN poo pooing another renewables initiative with your science.
- stephen_g 5y agoNo they didn't... They're only correcting gameswithgo's mistake - it still agrees with what's being talked about in the article...
- hinkley 5y agoCogeneration is generally good, but it's not perfect. It tends to include perverse incentives. As someone pointed out in a recent thread, when you sell the byproduct you have an incentive to keep producing that byproduct. No incentive to remove it, reduce the volume, or reduce consumption. "The fuel is free anyway, so who cares?"