hsnoil
hsnoil t1_jaaslxj wrote
Reply to comment by Necoras 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
It isn't clean to burn regardless of what color. It gives off a lot of NOx.
As for air travel, the low energy density by volume makes it a pretty big barrier
hsnoil t1_jaasfpx 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
Uhm, no. First of hydrogen doesn't have the energy density by volume, you can convert it into methanol and use methanol fuel cells, but it still less energy dense than jet fuel.
And heating with hydrogen is a dumb idea, it outputs a ton of NOx.
hsnoil t1_jaas0ft wrote
Reply to comment by travistravis 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
You can have fast air travel without it... as long as you don't mind being rail-gunned at multiple times the speed of sound. You won't die as long as the track is long enough to limit gforce, but you may crap your pants
hsnoil t1_jaarqz8 wrote
Reply to comment by sigmatrophic 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
This doesn't really fall into biofuels, it falls under waste fuels. Cause what they are burning is plastic which is still a fossil fuel.
hsnoil t1_jaararb wrote
Reply to comment by KreamyKappa 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
It's like "natural flavors", on paper it is to hide their proprietary stuff, in reality it's so you don't know what you are really getting
hsnoil t1_jaato17 wrote
Reply to comment by Steamer61 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
More like being forced to make compromises. If you want A you have to agree with B. Because burning plastics isn't green, even the EPA admits it does nothing if you burn plastic. The problem was the rules were vague enough stating making fuel from "waste". Usually that means from waste food and etc. And waste would also include plastic, so they have to change the rules to deny them. But these loopholes aren't by accident, so good luck getting them changed.
Ethanol is cleaner than burning gasoline, it wasn't at first but it is these days assuming you aren't cutting down a new forest for it. That said, being better is marginal, especially when talking about making it from corn. It's like at best 1.5X improvement, but you can get 500X more energy out of that corn field if it was solar charging an electric car.