4 ms·
...but maximum thermal efficiency burning the fuel is 60%, and that doesn't account for the efficiency loss in transporting said fuel, either. There's a lot of
by KennyBlanken 4y ago
...but maximum thermal efficiency burning the fuel is 60%, and that doesn't account for the efficiency loss in transporting said fuel, either.
There's a lot of lost opportunity cost here as the planet cooks. We need maximum CO2 reduction as quickly as possible, and that will come only from wind/solar and electrifying as much as possible, and carbon taxation on corporations.
- amluto 4y agoAll of which may be true but is irrelevant. Even if a barrel of oil gets burned just because it’s pretty and achieves 0% thermal efficiency, it still costs around $100, pumping a barrel of oil out of the ground and burning it in a bonfire still releases the same amount of CO2, and finding a way to synthesize that pretty barrel of oil for less money by direct carbon capture will be an economical way to prevent those emissions. Energy conservation by improved efficiency is great, but it’s orthogonal.
- legutierr 4y agoYes, but batteries are heavy and we need other ways to power rockets and aircraft. This process may be thermally inefficient, but on a power-to-weight ratio basis, it is more attractive than many other alternatives.
- eru 4y agoWhat do you mean by the 'planet cooks'? (Global warming is a thing, but it won't go to 100C. The actual increase in temperature is much more modest.) And why only tax corporations?