Submitted by redingerforcongress t3_ydo0xd in Futurology
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv94ok wrote
Reply to comment by NekuraHitokage in Move over, diesel: Ohio gets ‘first of its kind’ renewable gas station by redingerforcongress
What makes it not clean? It only produces water and CO2 that came from and would have returned to the atmosphere regardless.
NekuraHitokage t1_itv9uea wrote
Because we are still producing the excess methane and then converting it into CO2. This is all still man made and it is all just slowing the process.
If this was using a natural methane vent? I'd absolutely hear the arguments of "well it was gonna be there anyway.
It isn't. It's from manure we produce from our livestock to feed peoppe and even then a ton of it gets thrown away or unused because it's a bad cut or x or y or z.
It isn't " clean" because it is still combusting something to produce CO2. The other greenhouse gas that, sure, might be "less bad" but is still melting ice caps and acidifying the oceans. As is the major problem with all of our excessive combustion.
I'm not even saying don't do it, but for heaven's sake, calling it "clean" is the same as calling coal "clean." You gotta jump through a few hoops to justify it.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvb7pp wrote
>Because we are still producing the excess methane and then converting it into CO2.
The methane is the result of natural decay of biological matter and again, was sourced from the atmosphere
>It isn't. It's from manure we produce from our livestock to feed peoppe
Um, yeah?
>It isn't " clean" because it is still combusting something to produce CO2
That came from and would return to the atmosphere anyways. It isn't producing new carbon how is that hard to understand?
>I'm not even saying don't do it, but for heaven's sake, calling it "clean" is the same as calling coal "clean." You gotta jump through a few hoops to justify it.
No, coal is polluting several toxic and radioactive compounds in addition to releasing new carbon. There is no such thing as "clean coal". Wildly different, and I think you only perceive it to be the same through a lack of understanding of the science and the difference between fossil sourced natural gas and methane that is already part of the carbon cycle.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvd03e wrote
That methane would not have been produced without human intervention. That is my entire point.
That many cows exist because of humans.
That much manure is created because of humans.
That much methane is produced as a part of that cycle... Because of humans.
Just because it came from and would return naturally does not mean that we are not dramatically accellerating the process.
Granted coal pollutes more, but the equivalance is there when we are talking about the precipice that we are standing on with climate change. The emitted carbons are what I'm talking about.
I'm not going to pretend I have a solution to methane, but putting it in cars and turning it into more CO2doesn't scream "clean" or "solution" to me. It screams delay and marketing.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvds49 wrote
>That methane would not have been produced without human intervention. That is my entire point.
That's a stronger argument to burn it as fuel because, and I repeat, that carbon came from the atmosphere in the first place. So if you're concerned about an increased ratio of methane, you support converting it back to CO2.
>I'm not going to pretend I have a solution to methane, but putting it in cars and turning it into more CO2doesn't scream "clean" or "solution" to me. It screams delay and marketing.
It isn't "more" because that carbon was already in the environment. It is clean because it's non-polluting. It isn't "delay" because it's in place of, carbon adding fossil fuels.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvgqmc wrote
But it is... It is carbon that was trapped in grass being released as gasses. The carbon was in the environment i. The exact same way fossil fuels were.
We had cows eat grass, convert the solid, non-greenhouse carbons in that grass into methane, and we are then releasing that into the atmosphere as a gas.
This is not a direct co2 to methane to co2 process, you are ignoring where that carbon was in the first place. In plants. Just like fossil fuels... Or have we forgotten fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter?
It is absolutely more. It is taking solid carbons and releasing them as gasses producing more co2 in the atmosphere than there was before.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvlpzu wrote
>But it is... It is carbon that was trapped in grass being released as gasses. The carbon was in the environment i. The exact same way fossil fuels were.
What do you think happens to grass when it dies?
>This is not a direct co2 to methane to co2 process, you are ignoring where that carbon was in the first place. In plants. Just like fossil fuels... Or have we forgotten fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter?
Not forgetting this at all, you're forgetting that most of it doesn't end up buried to eventually become fossil fuels either. Most of it is released back into the environment as methane through decay. It takes special circumstances such as pete bogs, wetlands, dense rain forest and shallow ocean basins for plant and animal matter to accumulate, be persevered and buried faster than it could decay to eventually become fossil fuels.
That is why we find fossil fuels in concentrated pockets and not as a fairly uniform distribution. Almost none of the carbon sequestered by grass on the plains grazed by cattle will end up that buried as that.
>It is absolutely more. It is taking solid carbons and releasing them as gasses producing more co2 in the atmosphere than there was before.
sigh as was already stated multiple times and as you're very last point even attempted to address, no, it is not more carbon, it is carbon that was already in the atmosphere, it is the exact amount as was there before it was captured by plants and that's where it would return or have stayed without our involvement, except it would have spent it's first 20 years after reentry as methane.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvr3za wrote
How fast do you think grass dies and decays rather than being mowed through by cows? How fast do you think it decays into CO2that isn't then immediately absorbed by the growth around it? Clear a field and kill the grass on the regular and that is not the "natural" process you're alliding to. Volcano eruptions are "natural" too, so I guess we just keep marching toward a new paleolithic era at a human-accelerated rate because "well, volcanos explode all the time."
Just because there is a natural parallel does not mean this is equivalent. You're comparing slow natural decay to rapid, acid and enzyme-based decay due to the overpopulation of a certain animal in concentrated locations.
I addressed that it is an acceleration of natural processes. Just because it would happen over time does not mean it is ok to press fast forward on the process. This is a foolish argument.
The parallel drawn was merely to point out that whether we are speaking fresh grass or old fossilized plant matter, it is still "carbon that existed in the environment." The fuel was trapped deep underground before we drilled and fracked for it. I even said I'd agree further if you were talking about someone capturing from a methane vent.
This is not that. This is taking methane that we are producing at an accelerated rate and turning it into CO2 that we will be releasing at an accelerated rate.
No matter what, this is humans still releasing solid carbons from their trapped forms into the atmosphere and accelerating the process. That is the root problem.
It isn't "clean" it isn't a "solution." It's fine and dandy as better-than-methane but at this point in the game more can-kicking isn't what we need. We need to find a way to stop releasing carbons as gasses as entirely as possible. It is, of course, going to happen... But doing it in every single vehicle is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvv82w wrote
>How fast do you think grass dies and decays rather than being mowed through by cows? How fast do you think it decays into CO2that isn't then immediately absorbed by the growth around it? Clear a field and kill the grass on the regular and that is not the "natural" process you're alliding to.
You realize cows can't eat it faster than it grows and don't magically conjure more carbon into existence by doing so right? It the surrounding plants would have to wait 20 years for that CO2 to be available again and it will be available again anyways.
>Just because there is a natural parallel does not mean this is equivalant. You're comparing slow natural decay to rapid, acid and enzyme based decay due to the overpopulation of a certain animal in concentrated locations.
>I addressed that it is an acceleration of natural processes. Just because it would hapoen over time does not mean it is ok to press fast forward on the process. This is a foolish argument.
This isn't an argument against burning this methane, it's an argument against unsustainable farming practices. Which I'll certainly agree with you on.
>The parallel drawn was merely to point out that whether we are speaking fresh grass or old fossilized plant matter, it is still "carbon that existed in the environment." The fuel was trapped deep underground before we drilled and fracked for it.
No there is a big difference, the fossil carbon had been out of the environment for hundreds is millions of years, while the methane we're capturing and burning is actively part of the carbon cycle.
>This is taking methane that we are producing at an accellerated rate and turning it into CO2 that we will be releasing at an accellerated rate.
...You realize it's physically impossible to do that at a faster rate than sequestered right? Again, nothing in this process conjures more carbon atoms into existence and no new carbon atoms are introduced that weren't already in the atmosphere. If we are to feed cattle at an accelerated rate we must grow food for them at an accelerated rate which sequesteres CO2 at an accelerated rate. The only hitch is that methane naturally decays over 20 years and is 80x more potent than the CO2 it was before, this will rate match with it's production but we can increase the ratio, you are correct on that. Again however that is an argument for burning it to skip that time period
>No matter what, this is humans still releasing solid carbons from their trapped forms into the atmosphere and accellerating the process. That is the root problem.
No, it isn't, your entire argument is based around "we're doing this more than natural" but that starts with CO2 that was already in the atmosphere we are not, in any way, releasing CO2 that wasn't already there or while soon be returned there.
>It isn't "clean" it isn't a "solution." It's fine and dandy as better-than-methane but at this point in the game more can kicking isn't what we need. We need to find a way to stop releasing carbons as gasses as entirely as possible. It is, of course, going to happen... But doing it in every single vehicle is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
It is by definition clean and a solution to reduce methane in the atmosphere while cutting fossil emissions at the same time. Not utilizing this would be kicking the can and prolonging the problem. No one is suggesting we do this for every vehicle, I doubt we can fully scale methane capture from waste to run all our energy off of it. But it is a sustainable resource we actually have a net benefit from utilizing and has uses as a niche for applications where batteries just don't get the job done.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvw7gi wrote
I think our disconnect is that you think I'm arguing against this... I'm not!
I'm arguing that we need to call a kettle black and not waste time on psuedo "clean" solutions while lamenting the timing of this. 20-30 years ago i'd have agreed that this was clean. Now? Hardly.
And the rate of growth is not equivalant to the rate of consumption. That's the problem. We consistantly undergrow and use other wastes to make up that lack of growth. Indeed I suppose it is more of an argument to farming practices, but that's attached to this "solution." Again why I said we'd be in full agreement if they were pulling from a natural methane vent.
Hell, we could easily be growing meat in labs with 0 methane production if we could get over it. Just tell some muscle cells to start growing and cut off a slab whenever you're hungry for some meat. It'll grow back soon enough.
That is the other point. Because of how late this has come, I feel that the resources could have gone elsewhere.
It's a good idea... But feels like too little too late. That was and has been my only point. We're past this kind of can kicking. That's my only point and lament.
Heck, I'll even agree for its use in other fuel applications. Using it in cars doesn't feel like it's the one to go for.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvytqm wrote
>I think our disconnect is that you think I'm arguing against this... I'm not!
>I'm arguing that we need to call a kettle black and not waste time on psuedo "clean" solutions while lamenting the timing of this. 20-30 years ago i'd have agreed that this was clean. Now? Hardly.
These statements are in contradiction, but if it would have been "clean" 30 years ago it's all clean now. Science doesn't change how it works because time passed.
>And the rate of growth is not equivalant to the rate of consumption. That's the problem. We consistantly undergrow and use other wastes to make up that lack of growth.
Again, an argument for addressing unsustainable farming, which I agree with both crop and animal, but not an argument for not utilizing the methane already being released and putting it to use that also reduces it's warming impact.
>Hell, we could easily be growing meat in labs with 0 methane production if we could get over it. Just tell some muscle cells to start growing and cut off a slab whenever you're hungry for some meat.
While our technology is pushing this capability, it's not that simple or cheap, it also still has to source its composites (including carbon) from somewhere and so there isn't much of a distinction here. It's also not just from cows you know?
>That is the other point. Because of how late this has come, I feel that the resources vould have gone elsewhere.
>It's a good idea... But feels like too little too late. That was and has been my only point. We're past this kind of can kicking. That's my only point and lament.
The article is about a station that's new, but capturing methane releases from waste isn't, we've been doing that for awhile, so what resources? the methane that's literally better burned than left alone to be released as is? Every gas plant, every converted truck, every ship, running on this is one not adding carbon to the problem.
NekuraHitokage t1_itw3nwk wrote
You said yourself that "clean" is relative unless I'm conflating conversations. Science indeed does not change. Conditions do. 20 to 30 years ago, we weren't as poor off in all of our greenhouse issues and this kind of planned can-kicking would have been much more beneficial.
And the statements are not. This is not clean and should not waste things actually clean (for the atmosphere) resources should get. That does not mean the product should not exist for uses when fuel is needed. Indeed utilize it... But don't call it "clean" and act like it's the end. That is it.
Having a gas station for vehicles specifically is my argument, I suppose. If using it as a fuel is viable, use it in the use cases that absolutely need combustible fuel. Vehicles don't need that.
I've been speaking of vehicle use the entire time. I've been speaking of our production of methane the whole time. Not about naturally ocurring methane. Not of use cases that are outside of a gas station on the side of the road. That's the biggest over-user of combustible fuels. If methane use in areas where combustion is absolutely needed helps? Cool! Not talking about those.
I'm speaking specifically of this application. A fuel station made for vehicles that combust fuel on the road. You are arguing many other points that do not apply. You even stated that that is what the article is discussing. That is what I am discussing. No more. No less. I am not talking about non-anthrogenic carbon emissions.
But we also need to be looking at the root and trying to stop our own methane emissions entirely. Because those vehicles are the end of a chain that need not exist. That is my entire point. This is kicking the can, not cutting our methane emissions which is what needs to happen. Because there are so many natural sources that our anthrogenic production is overloading the system.
That was... Kinda my point. It's what I was talking about from the start.your "why not utilize it" argument is absolutely beside that point when my entire point was to say "this is just exchanging one gas for another in vehicles... It doesn't address the root... It just kicks the can."
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw8gaz wrote
>You said yourself that "clean" is relative unless I'm conflating conversations.
I said it was clean because it's byproducts are water and CO2, these aren't toxic pollutants and CO2 emissions are an issue because of introducing new carbon causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. This isn't new carbon though it was, and will regardless, remain a part of the environment.
>Science indeed does not change. Conditions do. 20 to 30 years ago, we weren't as poor off in all of our greenhouse issues and this kind of planned can-kicking would have been much more beneficial.
Right but that doesn't change the science on if it's clean or not and I already addressed how not replacing some fossil fuel usage with this sooner is actually can kicking.
>That does not mean the product should not exist for uses when fuel is needed. Having a gas station for vehicles specifically is my argument, I suppose. If using it as a fuel is viable, use it in the use cases that absolutely need combustible fuel. Vehicles don't need that.
Yeah but it's something we can do right now to add to the effort to reduce fossil fuel usage, not in place of other efforts. It dosen't come with the same limitations that batteries do in certain applications, shipping for instance. Largely I agree though batteries are a clear way to go for land vehicles (at least in most applications) and burning it in a power plant would be more efficient.
>I've been speaking of vehicle use the entire time. I've been speaking of our production of methane the whole time. Not about naturally ocurring methane. Not of use cases that are outside of a gas station on the side of the road. That's the biggest over-user of combustible fuels. If methane use in areas where combustion is absolutely needed helps? Cool! Not talking about those.
Ah well, that would be a difference in what we were talking about, because I was talking about capturing and burning methane from waste that would return to the atmosphere if we did nothing anyways.
I agree vehicles aren't the most efficient use of it with some exception and absolutely we should be getting off fossil sourced natural gas as well as every other fossil fuel as fast as possible.
>But we also need to be looking at the root and trying to stop our own methane emissions entirely. Because those vehicles are the end of a chain that need not exist. That is my entire point. This is kicking the can, not cutting our methane emissions which is what needs to happen. Because there are so many natural sources that our anthrogenic production is overloading the system.
Some disagreement here, that methane would largely exist if more dispersed in nature, this also acts as a or part of cutting those methane emissions by releasing it as the CO2 it came from and would return to anyways. I suppose if we buried and sealed it that would be removing carbon but attempts at that kind of carbon capture have been dubious and as long as we're in a capitalist framework, financially uninspired to pursue in earnest.
>That was... Kinda my point. It's what I was talking about from the start.your "why not utilize it" argument is absolutely beside that point when my entire point was to say "this is just exchanging one gas for another in vehicles."
Yeah I was at no point suggesting we should replace all vehicles with this and that we could scale capturing methane from waste alone for all our energy needs. Regardless of what we could, could not, and should do to reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere at one time as part of the carbon cycle, we might as well use what's already there especially when doing so just converts it back to what it was and out of a more harmful form faster. Not at all suggesting we try to intentionally make more of it.
NekuraHitokage t1_itwaj8t wrote
Then I think we actually... Mostly agree, and I'm glad we kept up the discussion!
As for that, you're mostly right I think, but that dispersion is important. The greater surface area makes it easier to break down in other ways and keeps it from creating concentrated blankets. A pasture is like sticking a straw in the water and blowing bubbles rather than using a fine aerator. The aerator will get some in solution at least, rather than just jetting gobs of the less dense gas up to the top. Hell, if we had many smaller pastures rather than big industrial ones, that could even help. There are a lot of ways to tackle things that I am in no way qualified to speak on.
My only point really was to say "neat but... Why not just stop producing as much methane? And how can we truly call this 'clean?'
I was in no way trying to say this wasn't beneficial in some way, just that it doesn't address the fact that we're creating too much anthropogenic methane to begin with and that this narrative and the conflation of "clean" with being the perfect solution - especially in marketing - is... Misleading.
Perhaps I am arguing semantics here, but had they even called it "green" rather than "clean" I'd have had less to say. To call it "clean," to most, is to imply that it is the solution, not just an effort. Feels like poorly disguised marketing around something that could otherwise have a decent application with a more transparent understanding.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwcfqs wrote
Yeah we seem to mostly agree, just confusion on the exact thing we were each talking about.
>As for that, you're mostly right I think, but that dispersion is important. The greater surface area makes it easier to break down in other ways and keeps it from creating concentrated blankets. A pasture is like sticking a straw in the water and blowing bubbles rather than using a fine aerator. The aerator will get some in solution at least, rather than just jetting gobs of the less dense grass up to the top. Hell, if we had many smaller pastures rather than big industrial ones, that could even help. There are a lot of ways to tackle things that I am in no way qualified to speak on.
I completely agree with all of that.
And yeah it's also true that fossil fuel companies muddied the word "clean". And nothing is a perfect solution either, we just have several imperfect solutions that can all work together at various scale with a variety of effectiveness and drawbacks.
I'm glad we kept it going too, thanks for the actual discussion instead of the arguing and science denial I've experienced elsewhere on this post. o7
NekuraHitokage t1_itwndjg wrote
Agree on all points eh? Gee, thanks. :p
But hey, none of us are. We're mostly arguing opinion here. Fact-backed, but opinion. I'm glad we found the disconnect! I find that truly is where "argument" comes about. Most folks wanna agree, just not at the cost of their morals and standards. But we're all flexible too, or should be. Nobody wants what they think is worst it's just the ignorant sorts that wanna stick their head in the sand that cause issues.
But yeah, the perfect world it'd be like the water cycle. Trap the methane, convert it to CO2, plant the food crop, trap the CO2, rinse, and repeat. The problem I see here is just people seeing this and people calling it "clean" and going "so... That's it, right?" when we still have reduction efforts and alternative solutions in other fields and all that to consider. That's all. This one effort just feels like a "no duh, why didn't we do this 20 years ago? Now this effort is too late!
I am glad it helps! I just... don't think it helps enough in this field. And I just don't want to see it turned into a marketing ploy as manipulatable as "carbon offsets" and all that. Just raising a flag, not chaining to the tree. Lol.
And of course, I'd never directly deny science. It is because science says that we are in an emergency state that I hold this very opinion! Passionate and a bit of a tight pull on the rope, if you'll forgive further idiom; but, i live on the west coast of the US and breathing smoke is rather unpleasant. I'd like to see reduction in production ASAP. XD
And to you a cheers on that. I appreciate your passion and for presenting fact and arguing through logically with me. If ever either of our logics could be flawed. We're human, after all, that's why we temper it with fact. My view, at least. But I ramble! Have a wonderful one, stranger-friend. o7
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments