3 ms·

Yeah going net zero by just stopping emissions isn't just not going to help our situation that much, we've already emitted enough to fuck ourselves properly, it

Yeah going net zero by just stopping emissions isn't just not going to help our situation that much, we've already emitted enough to fuck ourselves properly, it's also not even possible. There's no such thing as a net zero society with our current technology, period. Anyone seen an electric tractor lately? Combine harvester EVs? Electric aircraft? Zero emission concrete? Electric container ships? Cheap plastics without oil? Electric orbital launch vehicles!? Lots of fantasy tech that ranges from being cost ineffective to borderline infeasible and we can't (or won't, anyway) run our civilization without these and dozens more that have no real replacement on the horizon. Covid has made that point really sharply clear, we just can't stop ourselves. Piston engined planes still today run on leaded gas despite knowing that it's literal poison for fucks sake, it's fuckin hopeless to convince anyone about anything when there's a chance someone might lose money. Carbon capture might help in the long run, but the bulk of it will have to be on geoengineering to even give us a century of time to remove megatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans. And maybe a fish or two will even survive.

cyberax 2y ago
> There's no such thing as a net zero society with our current technology, period. That's not quite true. All the technology is here, just not yet deployed. > Anyone seen an electric tractor lately? Biofuels exists. Even now, we have enough biomass to produce replacement fuel for agriculture, long-distance trucking, and rail transport. We just waste it on mostly useless ethanol. > Electric aircraft? Aircraft will switch to SAF (synthetic fuel). Right now, manufacturers are working on adapting and certifying engines to use 100% SAF and the work is expected to be completed around 2030. > Zero emission concrete? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cement-process-could-slash-emissions-from-construction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cem... > Electric container ships? https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-clean-ammonia-powered-container-ship/ https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-cle... The technologies are here already. They now need to mature and then be deployed.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  > Biofuels exists At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already. > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cement-process-could-slash-emissions-from-construction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cem... Unless it's the same price or cheaper as regular concrete, it will be used by literally nobody. No nation has the balls to mandate something like that when there's a billion real estate lobbyists telling them otherwise either. > the work is expected to be completed around 2030 Great, we might actually see some of these planes in active service by 2120 then! > https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-clean-ammonia-powered-container-ship/ https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-cle... There's also https://electrek.co/2024/05/02/fully-electric-10000-ton-container-ship-begun-service50000-kwh-batteries https://electrek.co/2024/05/02/fully-electric-10000-ton-cont... and a hundred hydrogen prototypes, and flettner rotors, and wingsails that went absolutely nowhere in practice. Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with, ships are large investments that last 30 years and nobody wants to spend money retrofitting them with a new powertrain. Note how solar in general was basically a rounding error in terms of usage until it became cheap enough to actually displace existing alternatives. All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already. Fuel is about 3% of the farm expenses ( https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_FarmExpenditures_Highlights.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_... ), even tripling it will not make produce significantly more expensive for consumers. But individual farmers can't switch because it will make their individual farm uncompetitive. That's where the regulation should come in to force _everyone_ to switch, negating the competitive advantages. > Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with Shipping had largerly switched to low-sulfur fuel by 2020, resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted. > All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects. Not really. Most of the technologies required for low-CO2 economy exist right now, and just need to be deployed. It just needs political will to force its adoption.

cyberax 2y ago

> There's no such thing as a net zero society with our current technology, period. That's not quite true. All the technology is here, just not yet deployed. > Anyone seen an electric tractor lately? Biofuels exists. Even now, we have enough biomass to produce replacement fuel for agriculture, long-distance trucking, and rail transport. We just waste it on mostly useless ethanol. > Electric aircraft? Aircraft will switch to SAF (synthetic fuel). Right now, manufacturers are working on adapting and certifying engines to use 100% SAF and the work is expected to be completed around 2030. > Zero emission concrete? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cement-process-could-slash-emissions-from-construction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cem... > Electric container ships? https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-clean-ammonia-powered-container-ship/ https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-cle... The technologies are here already. They now need to mature and then be deployed.

moffkalast 2y ago
> Biofuels exists At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already. > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cement-process-could-slash-emissions-from-construction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2432222-zero-carbon-cem... Unless it's the same price or cheaper as regular concrete, it will be used by literally nobody. No nation has the balls to mandate something like that when there's a billion real estate lobbyists telling them otherwise either. > the work is expected to be completed around 2030 Great, we might actually see some of these planes in active service by 2120 then! > https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-clean-ammonia-powered-container-ship/ https://www.yara.com/corporate-releases/the-worlds-first-cle... There's also https://electrek.co/2024/05/02/fully-electric-10000-ton-container-ship-begun-service50000-kwh-batteries https://electrek.co/2024/05/02/fully-electric-10000-ton-cont... and a hundred hydrogen prototypes, and flettner rotors, and wingsails that went absolutely nowhere in practice. Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with, ships are large investments that last 30 years and nobody wants to spend money retrofitting them with a new powertrain. Note how solar in general was basically a rounding error in terms of usage until it became cheap enough to actually displace existing alternatives. All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already. Fuel is about 3% of the farm expenses ( https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_FarmExpenditures_Highlights.pdf https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2024/2023_... ), even tripling it will not make produce significantly more expensive for consumers. But individual farmers can't switch because it will make their individual farm uncompetitive. That's where the regulation should come in to force _everyone_ to switch, negating the competitive advantages. > Shipping uses the lowest quality, cheapest possible fuels that are borderline impossible to compete with Shipping had largerly switched to low-sulfur fuel by 2020, resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted. > All of these technologies have 50 years of dev time to practical scale and cost competitive effectiveness in them at best, so they can almost be considered a fantasy along with net energy gain fusion for any kind of notable impact beyond pilot projects. Not really. Most of the technologies required for low-CO2 economy exist right now, and just need to be deployed. It just needs political will to force its adoption.