2 ms·
While that is true, it is misleading. If you can use a fixed quantity of fossil fuels to generate many decades of carbon free energy, the change to the overall
by throwaway5752 3y ago
While that is true, it is misleading. If you can use a fixed quantity of fossil fuels to generate many decades of carbon free energy, the change to the overall lifecycle carbon requirements are very different.
Just like in algorithms, making it an O(1) rather than O(n) solution, even with a large constant factor, can make an enormous difference over time.
- walleeee 3y agoYour point is also true. I would contest the notion that mine is misleading, given that the parent asks, "where are the fossil fuels?"
- throwaway5752 3y agoFair point! I don't think transportation, manufacture, or extraction ultimately require fossil fuels. Most of the energy inputs are fungible between fossil fuel or renewable. I agree with you right now but that is not a permanent role for fossil fuels. I think input processing (redox) and plastics will be the most persistent. But overall non haber-bosch ammonia is going to reduce co2 emissions and should be celebrated.
- walleeee 3y agoWhile in principle I agree fossil fuels aren't required, in practice it is much more difficult to convert transportation, manufacture and extraction than most realize Also suspect modern agriculture's conviction that the crop is an empty vessel requiring synthetic fertilizer is long overdue for reconsideration. Organic ag can be as productive as industrial ag, at far less energy/materials cost, but it will require much more human effort. While this is a very serious tradeoff to make I would argue it is worthwhile in the long run.