Necoras

Necoras t1_ja9zrye wrote

Reply to comment by SenorHat in This “Climate-Friendly” Fuel Comes With an Astronomical Cancer Risk: Almost half of products cleared so far under the new federal biofuels program are not in fact biofuels — and the EPA acknowledges that the plastic-based ones may present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. by nastratin

I mean... jet fuel is highly combustive. Jets explode when they crash. Any highly concentrated storage of energy (fuel tank, battery) is basically just another name for a bomb.

4

Necoras t1_ja9pia3 wrote

Reply to comment by secretqwerty10 in This “Climate-Friendly” Fuel Comes With an Astronomical Cancer Risk: Almost half of products cleared so far under the new federal biofuels program are not in fact biofuels — and the EPA acknowledges that the plastic-based ones may present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. by nastratin

Ironically, plastic -> oil is worse for the climate than just leaving the plastic in the ground. Plastic, which famously doesn't degrade (though that's not exactly true; there are bacteria which are evolving to eat the stuff) is just another name for long term carbon storage. Obviously we'd much rather have that in a properly designed and build landfill than in the ocean. But turning it into oil and burning it is just putting more CO2 from oil into the atmosphere.

15

Necoras t1_ja9p6cq wrote

Reply to comment by Honigwesen in This “Climate-Friendly” Fuel Comes With an Astronomical Cancer Risk: Almost half of products cleared so far under the new federal biofuels program are not in fact biofuels — and the EPA acknowledges that the plastic-based ones may present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. by nastratin

They don't know. It hasn't been disclosed yet:

>ProPublica and The Guardian did obtain one consent order that covers a dozen Chevron fuels made from plastics that were reviewed under the program. Although the EPA had blacked out sections, including the chemicals’ names, that document showed that the fuels that Chevron plans to make at its Pascagoula refinery present serious health risks,

16

Necoras t1_ja9os4f wrote

Reply to comment by Undernown in This “Climate-Friendly” Fuel Comes With an Astronomical Cancer Risk: Almost half of products cleared so far under the new federal biofuels program are not in fact biofuels — and the EPA acknowledges that the plastic-based ones may present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. by nastratin

Hydrogen is clean (assuming it's green and not blue), but it's remarkably inefficient. For home heating, you need almost 6 times as much renewable energy with a hydrogen furnace compared to an electric heat pump. And that's with a middle of the road heat pump (COP 3). The newer high end ones can reach a COP of 4 or 5, which is more than twice as efficient as a COP 3.

Hydrogen may very well be our best bet for air travel, but for things on the ground it's not a very good solution.

3