But still... you're burning hydrocarbons so you end up producing a lot of CO2 which is going straight into the atmosphere. That's not what I'd call super green.

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s carbon that’s already part of the carbon cycle. Like burning wood or consuming food.

The carbon to worry about is the stuff we’re extracting from underground.

[–] Rekliner@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And where are the bioreactors located? What would happen to that carbon if it weren't collected by the reactors?

I agree its better than mined gas, it falls under the 3Rs, but it's still taking carbon from the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere.

In the grand scheme of things the deus ex machina of fusion is the only long term solution.

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If it’s capture from a landfill, it’d likely be released as methane directly into the atmosphere.

If it’s made from things like chaff, it often gets simply burnt and released immediately back as CO2 into the atmosphere. No difference but significant usable energy.

[–] Rekliner@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I was absolutely arguing the wrong side of that, sorry. I didn't realize landfill emissions don't stay in the ground.

https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The methane just breaks down into an equivalent amount of CO2 when vented anyways and until then is a much more potent greenhouse gas. That's why it's usually flared off apart from safety.