3 ms·
Now you are being disingenuous. Everyone reputable separates "traditional biofuels", which include poorer people cooking over open wood fires, from modern biofu
by Gwypaas 3y ago
Now you are being disingenuous. Everyone reputable separates "traditional biofuels", which include poorer people cooking over open wood fires, from modern biofuels.
Traditional biofuels are being replaced with renewables at an incredible pace since it allows for distributed power generation, and a better life, globally.
Modern biofuels are one alternative among others, including synthetic fuels, likely to be used for long-distance air travel and ocean-crossing commercial shipping. That is an incredibly tiny source of pollution today and one that we will very easily regulate to handle potential particle emissions in the future.
- acidburnNSA 3y agoNo need to insult. I think most people agree that low-carbon, long-term sustainable, clean are the goals, not renewability. It's widely accepted that some renewables like biofuel in general have both air pollution and climate challenges. Take a look at the IPCC's lifecycle CO2 assessments for proof.
- Gwypaas 3y agoAnd we get 5-10x the people using electricity instead of burning either traditional biofuels or fossil fuels using renewables. What are we optimizing for here? Impact or through any means possible justifying nuclear?
- acidburnNSA 3y agoThe goal is to reduce the world's primary energy from 80% fossil and renewable biofuel down to zero as fast as possible. Sounds like you're making the error where you think it has to be either wind/solar/hydro or nuclear. This is not a zero sum game.
- Gwypaas 3y agoIn a fantasy world of infinite resources it is not a zero sum game. In a world where we have prioritize the use of limited resources 5-10x the impact goes a long way.