Alt text:

An idling gas engine may be annoyingly loud, but that’s the price you pay for having WAY less torque available at a standstill.

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 days ago

    oops you posted irrelevant pedantics that verge on misinformation 😧

    sure it’s distilled solar energy that cannot be renewed. relevant language highligted. no one “forgets,” this. literally no one. it’s just not relevant to a timespan less than millions of years. cheers! ☀️

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        v true but i also dislike how biofuels get smorked into yet more CO2 which is kind of a problem rn

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          Biofuels are carbon-neutral. They release CO2 when burned, but it doesn’t matter because that same CO2 had recently been sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant they came from.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 days ago

            In theory true. In reality not true.

            While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2emissions. study

            Not passing judgement on anything, just putting the facts out there that I happen to know :) Biofuel may or may not be a good tool to move toward more sustainability, and it’s certainly better than petrol.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              My biofuel of choice is biodiesel produced from byproducts of chicken rendering that would otherwise become waste/pollution anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              The way I see it, we should electrify all the things that can be (urban driving, both freight and passenger trains, etc.), maximize the use of those things (e.g. by shifting long-haul freight away from trucking and back towards rail, and shifting airline travel to high-speed rail), and then use biofuels for the relatively-niche stuff that’s left instead of spending excessive effort trying to get electric to cover 100% of cases.

    • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      11 days ago

      Um piss off. It is not irrelevant or misinformation. That is exactly what petroleum is.

      You clearly can’t understand a factual statement from an opinion I never said it was good I never said it was bad I just said it was. If you’d bother to take a moment to think about it. You would realize that I was referring to the fact that petroleum is extremely energy dense. For the very reason I stated. That is fundamentally why petroleum has become a successful energy source and why it’s been so difficult to replace.

      You’re welcome to point out where I said it was renewable. I think you’re going to have a difficult time finding that statement.

      As for being a pedantic ass that’s clearly your territory. A pedantic ass that it likes to put words in other people’s mouths.