xkcd

8761 readers

6 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1104

xkcd #2948: Electric vs Gas (xkcd.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

728 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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! ☀️

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Petroleum can't be renewed, but biofuels can be.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biofuels are carbon-neutral. They release CO~2~ when burned, but it doesn't matter because that same CO~2~ had recently been sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant they came from.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[+] [email protected] -26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your post was bordering on irrelevant to the original comment. In light of that the information you provided can really only be interpreted is as pro-fossil fuel.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

mean comment alert 🚨 opinion invalidated