Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
H2 seems like a good option - adding a car or two of H2 tanks to the train would be trivial. Would just depend if the cost is worth it vs electrifying, batteries or biofuel.
As you say though, this is not low lying fruit. There's a ton of things to clean up before we look at the railways.
|
Yes I kind of forgot about hydrogen. Its energy density makes it another option in situations in which batteries aren't practical due to range/cost/weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
I am not a big fan of biofuels. It seems to me to be greenwashing rather than a truly green option.
|
I think it's greenwashing when people suggest that we can keep doing exactly what we've been doing in terms of energy consumption but just burn ethanol or biodiesel rather than gasoline or fuel oil. It would be a disaster to have a large portion of societal energy come from biofuels. But they're perfect to fill the gap for that remaining small slice of energy needs that are really difficult to electrify. But... that's if it's done right.
Biofuels are
potentially carbon neutral, but not
necessarily carbon neutral. If say, you clear huge tracts of forest where carbon is sequestered and start growing corn, then not so much. If you inject carbon emissions into the production process by growing the organic material using fossil fuel powered tractors and moving it long distances with fossil fuel powered trucks, etc. then it's no longer carbon neutral. But if it's produced using waste materials or algae and transported in a carbon-free manner, that's different. So whether or not it's actually green is in the details rather than the general concept.
But ultimately any energy strategy needs to look at both the production side and the consumption side. We can't use any production/storage innovations as an excuse for not using energy more responsibly.
Threaded Mode