Green - An environmentalist community

5234 readers

17 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

165

Current Climate: A New Nuclear Reactor Goes Online In Georgia (www.forbes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When do we get the next one?

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know all that, but I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. Grow all those plants, and leave the carbon there. It's a much better use of our resources than burning it all again straight after. Let them become coal. And then continue not burning it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You asked what the difference was and claimed that biofuels aren't carbon neutral and that both are equivalent. I explained why they are carbon neutral in theory and why they are very different from burning fossil fuels.

Carbon capture and biofuels are approaching two extremely different problems. Carbon capture is not mutually exclusive with biofuels, they aren't even close to alternatives. Framing them as alternatives is ridiculous. Literally different problems, carbon capture doesn't produce power (the opposite, in fact) and biofuels are extremely inefficient land use for carbon capture, and slow.

That just sounds like absurdly naive or bad faith black and white thinking, honestly. It doesn't make sense as a claim.