Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wersywerxy t1_j847aqp wrote

Lots of folks misunderstanding what technologies like this can do for us as a species.

At a fundamental level, climate change is driven by taking carbon from the ground and putting it in the air. Let's pull some numbers out of our ass and say 500 years ago there was 50 tons of carbon in the atmosphere and 400 tons in the ground (again, these numbers are way low and way simplified). As we moved through the industrial revolution we pulled coal, oil, and natural gas out of the earth and burned it; taking the carbon they stored underground and putting it in the atmosphere. Our numbers now look something like 150 tons of carbon in the atmosphere and 300 tons underground.

Even if tomorrow we suddenly stopped burning all fossil fuels forever and never put another atom of carbon in the air again these numbers wouldn't change and climate change would remain unsolved.

With a technology like these researches have come up with you create a cycle of carbon rather then a transfer. Reusing the same carbon atoms over and over again rather than pulling more out of the ground. You still haven't solved the fact that there's too much carbon in the atmosphere but what you can do is essentially de-carbonize the fossil fuel sector.

I get that sounds backwards, so let me explain: If you use gasoline in your car that originally started as oil in the ground you are taking carbon and putting it in the atmosphere, which we don't want. But if someone takes carbon from the atmosphere and mixes it up with reactors like this one then refines and cracks it into gasoline which you then burn, it's technically carbon neutral. You haven't pulled more out of the ground for your transportation, since all the carbon that you put into the air started out in the air.

This allows us to de-carbonize every sector still using fossil fuels without them needing to spend years we don't have developing and implementing greener versions of their own.

Now is it completely carbon neutral? No. But it's a helluva lot closer to it than our current setup.

In addition: it lets us tackle another part of the problem, all the extra carbon still in the atmosphere.

Oil as a substance is pretty good at being a dense carbon storage medium, it's not the best, but it does a damn good job. So the opportunity we have is to build these reactors at such a large scale that we overproduce. Making more oil than the world needs, we can then pump that excess back into the ground. Taking the carbon we originally took out of the ground and putting it back. Which takes the wheels off the climate change train in a big way.

I'll end by saying this is not the silver bullet solution to all our problems, like every other technology this is a tool, not the whole damn toolbox.

Anyone who tells you stuff like this means we can keep burning fossil fuels willy-nilly without a care in the world is wrong. The adverse health effects of oil, gas, and especially coal; are not something we can just dismiss.

But anyone who says this technology does not belong in our future because it involves creating and burning fossil fuels is missing the key role this can play in mitigating the worst of climate change and reducing humanities need for carbon that is still in the ground and needs to stay there.

Sorry for the wall of text, TL;DR: these technologies can be useful, if we use them correctly.

40

Surur t1_j8576eb wrote

> This allows us to de-carbonize every sector still using fossil fuels without them needing to spend years we don't have developing and implementing greener versions of their own.

The big issue is the above last paragraph - it allows existing fossil fuel using industries to continue as before, and likely use a mix of a small amount of synth gas and a large amount of fossil fuel, and pretend they are solving the problem, instead of doing the hard work of moving to a new process which does not use fossil fuel at all

9

-Ch4s3- t1_j86yh9q wrote

Isn’t the goal to mitigate climate change by reducing atmospheric CO2?

2

Surur t1_j881sol wrote

Which would be best achieved by leaving that CO2 locked up in plastic in the landfill, not to convert the plastic back into fuel to be burnt.

1

pickingnamesishard69 t1_j88fva8 wrote

Agree with your first assesment - e-fuels are pushed by big oil to keep the status quo up as long as possible.

Disagreeing on the last technicality though: leaving stuff on landfills tends to leak methane into the athmosphere, which sucks.

For food waste we should replace compost and landfills with biodigesters, so that the methane gets captured, burned for energy and thus gets double use and lower impact (if done enough it can replace a big part of nat gas consumption)

If they manage to digest plastic into something useful too, why not. But Unfortunately good things like these will be used to keep producing plastic, which is an entire problem in itself.

2

Surur t1_j88ga3a wrote

Plastic will not decompose to methane. And the reason not to convert it to something else is that that process will release its embedded co2 into the atmosphere.

1

pickingnamesishard69 t1_j88goko wrote

Yes, the methane comed mostly from bio stuff. But plastic will degrade into smaller plastic, eventually getting into our drinking water. Already they found microplastics in the human bloodstream. We really need to get away from single use platics, plastic clothing and plastic fishing nets.

1