• Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was.

    Except it won’t be. Combustion is not a perfect CxHy O2 > CO2 + H2O reaction. Theres a bunch of other side reactions happening, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. There are lots of challenges to continuing to utilize hydrocarbon fuels, especially in mobile/small scale applications where you can’t clean the exhaust stream.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The particulate matter won’t occur in a hydrocarbon that is generated, that comes from imperfect processing of crude. If you pull the carbon directly out of the air there are no particulates.

      But yes it will still be carbon neutral. No additional carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Except it won’t be.

      None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

      What chemical reaction gets more carbon out than it puts in?
      (Where do these new carbon atoms come from, fusion?)

      If anything, those other products include non-gaseous compounds which sequester the carbon from the fuel into a solid resulting in a net-negative amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

      Those side-products are not good, I’m not saying otherwise, but they are not additional carbon.

      • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral

        So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.

        Referring to things as carbon neutral is typically shorthand for net neutral CO₂e (or net-zero) CO₂e.

        You’re pedantically right that the machine is not creating or destroying carbon atoms, but the things it does create have massive “carbon dioxide equivalence”. Or, phrased differently: the emissions of this equipment are equivalent to emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide.

        They also reek havoc on people’s lungs.

        This is worse than air, but better than doing nothing I suppose. The situation is not “improved by 100%”. It’s marginally better, but definitely not 100%.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Eh?

          You take excess green power and use it to generate gasoline. You use that gasoline in a combustion engine. Where is the extra carbon coming from which makes this non neutral?

      • B-TR3E@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

        Right. Because none of it is a fucking coal mine. Which is the only thing that can provide “carbon output”. Except a diamond mine, of course.