4 ms·

I think the reason everyone down thread is confused is that it was incredibly unclear that you were adding the whole sequester the net equivalent component. It

I think the reason everyone down thread is confused is that it was incredibly unclear that you were adding the whole sequester the net equivalent component. It's an interesting thought though I'm curious how all the pieces would balance in practice. Like, What's the cost of digging up the fuel? The cost of sequestering the equivalent. And there's pieces like reducing production reduces how much net sequestration will ever need to be done. I don't think it's so hyper self evident that no hypothetical future sustainable biofuel has a place. No one's selling you a sham solution here, it's research after all. > This whole scheme of "sustainable biofuels" is a complete Emperor Has No Clothes sham, to put it mildly. I think that's unreasonably uncharitable.

WalterBright 4y ago
> I'm curious how all the pieces would balance in practice That's a reasonable thought. Though I find it hard to believe that processing plants into synthetic fuels would be cheaper than just burying it, like into an old coal mine. > that's unreasonably uncharitable It's reasonably charitable because every single article I've ever read about biofuels never mentions my observation, nor have I ever heard anyone else mention it. It's all like "if we burn fuels made from plants, we're not really contributing to CO2" nonsense. People have mentioned growing trees and then stuffing them into coal mines to sequester the C, but never in the context of biofuels. Maybe I can draw attention to this by being uncharitable, which will make it worth while.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I think you just need better news sources: https://theconversation.com/amp/ipcc-report-biofuels-alone-are-unsustainable-but-can-still-help-combat-climate-change-25046 https://theconversation.com/amp/ipcc-report-biofuels-alone-a...
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This idea is called BECCS and is covered in detail by the IPCC reports: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_captur... It and concepts like it are why we talk about 'net zero carbon' and not just 'zero carbon'. It's generally assumed that some amount of this is required to stay below 1.5C so if this was the best solution for air travel, it would be used. It's not as good as SAF and electrification though, so it's not used here, or for any other current process that has better options available.

WalterBright 4y ago

> I'm curious how all the pieces would balance in practice That's a reasonable thought. Though I find it hard to believe that processing plants into synthetic fuels would be cheaper than just burying it, like into an old coal mine. > that's unreasonably uncharitable It's reasonably charitable because every single article I've ever read about biofuels never mentions my observation, nor have I ever heard anyone else mention it. It's all like "if we burn fuels made from plants, we're not really contributing to CO2" nonsense. People have mentioned growing trees and then stuffing them into coal mines to sequester the C, but never in the context of biofuels. Maybe I can draw attention to this by being uncharitable, which will make it worth while.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I think you just need better news sources: https://theconversation.com/amp/ipcc-report-biofuels-alone-are-unsustainable-but-can-still-help-combat-climate-change-25046 https://theconversation.com/amp/ipcc-report-biofuels-alone-a...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This idea is called BECCS and is covered in detail by the IPCC reports: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_captur... It and concepts like it are why we talk about 'net zero carbon' and not just 'zero carbon'. It's generally assumed that some amount of this is required to stay below 1.5C so if this was the best solution for air travel, it would be used. It's not as good as SAF and electrification though, so it's not used here, or for any other current process that has better options available.