3 ms·

> Biofuels exists At 2-3x the price. Ask an average farmer what their profit margins are. Oftentimes, roughly zero already. > https://www.newscientist.com/art

> 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.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  > resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted Yeah that has been a blunder of epic proportions, certainly helped a lot to bring last year up to 1.5 C. Well I hope you're right, but frankly I think political will is too focused on pointless infighting and corruption to get anything done even if they wanted to. Most people aren't even demanding anything from their representatives, they just want cheap food, cheap gas and no taxes. The Paris Agreement has become a complete joke by now, nobody's even trying to abide by it anymore.

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.

moffkalast 2y ago
> resulting in an additional increase in temperature, as fewer particulates are emitted Yeah that has been a blunder of epic proportions, certainly helped a lot to bring last year up to 1.5 C. Well I hope you're right, but frankly I think political will is too focused on pointless infighting and corruption to get anything done even if they wanted to. Most people aren't even demanding anything from their representatives, they just want cheap food, cheap gas and no taxes. The Paris Agreement has become a complete joke by now, nobody's even trying to abide by it anymore.