4 ms·

The plants used for the fuel would have pulled the CO2 from the atmosphere within the last year or so.

by manmal 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago
How is that relevant? A C atom from a million years ago is the same as a C atom from today. (Yes, I know Carbon 14 decays, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) A C atom from today is not magically different.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 8organicbits 4y ago
  The difference is that carbon from millions of years ago was buried deep underground. Digging up and burning fuel increases atmospheric carbon. Cycling atmospheric carbon into fuel and back to the atmosphere is a one for one replacement.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    That's why I wrote burying the equivalent plant C mass, which is a lot cheaper than trying to convert it into fuel.
    - manmal 4y ago
      I‘m not sure transporting plants to a dump site and burying them there is cheaper than converting to fuel and selling it. Excavation would be quite CO2 intensive, too.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Instead of transporting them to the fuel conversion site? There are landfills and pit mines everywhere.
        manmal 4y ago
        Just putting stuff in landfills results in methane production, which would gradually leak out and cause even more global warming than CO2. You‘d need to invest in making things air tight, ideally over hundreds of years.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Methane has a half life in the atmosphere of 12 years. Gradually leaking methane is way down the list of problems.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Methane is one of the top problems and low hanging fruit to tackle. https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane > Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 20 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/ https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/ > In advance of the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP 26), the United States and the European Union jointly launched the Global Methane Pledge, which asked countries to band together and commit to a collective goal of reducing global methane emissions at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030
- ksaj 4y ago
  It's almost relevant, because C14 decays into N14 (which is what we measure for carbon dating). N14 on the ground is a stable fertilizer. But if it is airborne and makes it to the planet's uppermost layers, cosmic rays eventually convert it back to C14 again. It's an interesting cycle.

The plants used for the fuel would have pulled the CO2 from the atmosphere within the last year or so.

by manmal 4y ago

The plants used for the fuel would have pulled the CO2 from the atmosphere within the last year or so.

How is that relevant? A C atom from a million years ago is the same as a C atom from today. (Yes, I know Carbon 14 decays, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) A C atom from today is not magically different.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
8organicbits 4y ago
The difference is that carbon from millions of years ago was buried deep underground. Digging up and burning fuel increases atmospheric carbon. Cycling atmospheric carbon into fuel and back to the atmosphere is a one for one replacement.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  That's why I wrote burying the equivalent plant C mass, which is a lot cheaper than trying to convert it into fuel.
  - manmal 4y ago
    I‘m not sure transporting plants to a dump site and burying them there is cheaper than converting to fuel and selling it. Excavation would be quite CO2 intensive, too.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Instead of transporting them to the fuel conversion site? There are landfills and pit mines everywhere.
      - manmal 4y ago
        Just putting stuff in landfills results in methane production, which would gradually leak out and cause even more global warming than CO2. You‘d need to invest in making things air tight, ideally over hundreds of years.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Methane has a half life in the atmosphere of 12 years. Gradually leaking methane is way down the list of problems.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Methane is one of the top problems and low hanging fruit to tackle. https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane > Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 20 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/ https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/ > In advance of the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP 26), the United States and the European Union jointly launched the Global Methane Pledge, which asked countries to band together and commit to a collective goal of reducing global methane emissions at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030
ksaj 4y ago
It's almost relevant, because C14 decays into N14 (which is what we measure for carbon dating). N14 on the ground is a stable fertilizer. But if it is airborne and makes it to the planet's uppermost layers, cosmic rays eventually convert it back to C14 again. It's an interesting cycle.