Burning ethanol still produces CO2? Ethanol is less energy dense than the fossil fuels in gasoline/petrol. How does this translate into fuel? This is the 3rd story today with claims that either don't make sense or I'm not getting.
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
31 points (89.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5797 readers
511 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's possible to produce a more energy dense fuel from corn, but the quantities you can produce are small compared with current total liquid fuel use. Long distance air travel is tough to electrify, so this is a plausible use of the limited biofuels we can produce.
In practice, the airlines and airplane manufacturers are using this possibility as a means of avoiding action
Burning ethanol does make CO2. But it releases CO2 that was pulled out of the atmosphere by the plant the ethanol was made from.
But the net CO2 is actually worse than just using fossil fuels, because of the use of fossil fuels to grow the amount of corn needed to make that much ethanol, and refine it.
That's not because of burning the ethanol itself, though.
Everything about this is bullshit. Airlines don"t give a teeny tiny fuckling about their carbon footprint and they definitely are not looking into "alternative fuel" technology from 1993.
Has any airline ever been honest about anything? Ever? This is just more low-effort PR from an industry built on deceiving and milking the public.
This comment is brought to you by United... United, saving Koalas one miniature sack of pretzels at a time.
Why not just go hydrogen at that point? Isn't it easier ?
Several reasons:
- it's cheaper to do a PR exercise than to actually change (Hydrogen requires all new aircraft)
- The lithium-air batteries coming to market in the next couple years are likely to make short-hop commercial electric air travel viable
- air travel isn't the worst use of limited biofuels
- it lets them use existing aircraft instead of new ones
Are you made. Lithium air. The holy Grail of battery tech. I want want your huffing. Think you are dreaming of you think we will get air travel with electricity in the next decade. Let alone few years.
It is no I agree but also why not skip middle man and go hydrogen. Cuts out a lot of issues with biofuel. Adds a bunch with hydrogen production, storage transportation, safety.
Also true.
I was under the impression they were retrofitting them to take hydrogen. I know a family member on the areospace field and they are currently testing hydrogen as a new system. Obviously electric would be better but it's decades away.
Yeah bad thought process. I wouldn't say as bad as Trump though. I've not been racist sexist or claiming wind mills cause cancer. I get a few positive nys for that.
Viable aircraft batteries are close. Probably not the 'this year' that's in the announcement, but next in 2024.
Short haul flights. Yes. Because I know they have them. Currently testing. But nothing substantial. Battery isn't ready just yet. Won't be ready for several years. Then plants need to test for 10+ years for safety. Then production and getting them to customers. It's a long way away.
Small planes that can fly for a few hours then recharge are viable.