5 ms·
That completely defeats the purpose of using hydrogen instead of methane.
by beervirus 5y ago
That completely defeats the purpose of using hydrogen instead of methane.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoAs long as it isn't adding fossil carbon, it seems fine to me.
- beervirus 5y agoWhere would the carbon come from that turns hydrogen into methane? It’s not being sucked out of the air.
- masklinn 5y ago> It’s not being sucked out of the air. It could be if it comes from wood or charcoal (though that seems unlikely).
- Lio 5y agoMethane is reputedly much worse for global warming than CO2 though. I’ve heard 4x worse before. If that’s true then inevitable leaks of unburnt methane would not be a good thing at all.
- leoedin 5y agoIt is, but only for a short time - I think 9 years or so. It's broken down in the atmosphere into CO2 and water.
- mech422 5y agoSo its worse the C02 for 9 years... And then _becomes_ CO2 ? Not seeing how this is a win?
- leoedin 5y agoAs long as the carbon contained in that methane comes from environmental carbon, rather than fossil carbon, the net effect on CO2 levels is 0. If a tree absorbs CO2 to grow, dies, gives off methane and that methane eventually turns back into CO2, it's not a problem. That's just the natural carbon cycle. The problem is that we're constantly injecting more carbon from deep underground into that carbon cycle. It's why biofuels are essentially carbon neutral.