Submitted by redingerforcongress t3_ydo0xd in Futurology
Valennnnnnnnnnnnnnnn t1_itu9god wrote
Reply to comment by FerociousPancake in Move over, diesel: Ohio gets ‘first of its kind’ renewable gas station by redingerforcongress
Burning methane (CH4) with oxygen (2 O2) gives you carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (2 H2O).
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv01ek wrote
Yup, it's actually clean burning which is why this is great, because unlike fossil sourced natural gas, it's not introducing new carbon, it's just skipping the methane step in the carbon cycle, which is 80x more potent as a greenhouse gas over it's normal 20 year decay time.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvlegj wrote
This isn't really true. Even ignoring the supply chain footprint, its not carbon neutral. Methane is a massive polluter. Its very hard to contain and when it leaks its a more problematic greenhouse gas than Co2
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvmkvi wrote
You mean, like how it would be released naturally back into the atmosphere anyways? We're talking about capturing methane released from biological decay.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvn1md wrote
But its not inevitable because the manure is from industry. And its still not carbon neutral.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvobx3 wrote
The manure is from animals that got it from plants which got it from... the atmosphere. It is carbon neutral, it didn't conjure new carbon atoms into existence like magic. Not only that but by burning the methane we shortcut it's 20 year life as a 80x more potent as an greenhouse gas than the CO2 it was originally and will become again anyways.
Why waste the resource when that byproduct of waste exists anyways, isn't introducing new carbon, and burning it actually reduces it's natural warming effect?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvy684 wrote
A) it doesn't exist anyways, we can independently end its production.
B) Methane is much worse than CO2 and you aren't shortcutting anything, you are letting the worse one into the atmosphere
C) ITS STILL NOT CARBON NEUTRAL WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.
Biofuels are industry green washing. They don't solve the problem and make us continue to be reliant on their products.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw05a3 wrote
>A) it doesn't exist anyways, we can independently end its production.
???
>B) Methane is much worse than CO2 and you aren't shortcutting anything, you are letting the worse one into the atmosphere
So you're making the argument we should burn it rather than let it be released as is.
>C) ITS STILL NOT CARBON NEUTRAL WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.
Because it is. It doesn't release new carbon. That CO2 came from the atmosphere and will return to the atmosphere, with a 20 year period of being methane in between, which is an 80x more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 it starts and ends the cycle as.
>Biofuels are industry green washing. They don't solve the problem and make us continue to be reliant on their products.
You dramatically misunderstand what's going on here. This isn't growing crops to process into ethanol. This is the natural byproduct of decay of biomatter. It exists anyways, we're just capturing it from waste and burning it for energy which skips the life it would have been in the atmosphere as methane, causing 80x more warming than CO2, before decaying back into CO2 anyways. It is literally more harmful to not do this. It's not like we're manufacturing it.
FrolfLarper t1_itw2n05 wrote
I think Mr. Hoover was trying to say that the amount of cow shit we have methaning out is not natural, it’s because of our industry. So it’s an offshoot of human activity. The more better solution would be to raise fewer cows rather than try and deal with their emissions. Yes, you can whatabout the shit out of this, just trying to make his point a little more clearly.
shastaxc t1_itwfagc wrote
Your take seems correct. That other dude is really bad at making a point. However, I don't think it's practical to just stop all industrial cow farming as a solution to the methane problem. Burning the methane is a much better solution. And it also solves his hypothetical supply chain emissions problem if you use trucks that run on the methane they're supplying.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwts45 wrote
Even better is using EVs and burning the methane in a powerplant, that's much more efficient. But anything that gets us off of fossil fuels faster at this point, no need to fret over a perfect solution, we just need a working system of solutions.
shastaxc t1_itxln28 wrote
You might be right but there might be good reasons for using methane that I don't know about. Is it cheaper than electric? It almost certainly refuels faster. You can move a gas super quickly. Is it more efficient than electricity? Longer trips without refueling is a good thing. These are all perfect for commercial trucking, but not necessarily for a daily commuter. Large batteries for a truck must be expensive, and at some point I think we will start to see lithium shortages, especially if EVs become more popular. Both methane fuel and electric can thrive together.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itxpckm wrote
Longer trips and heavy duty applications like shipping would be the main benefit. As far as efficiency, burning it in a large scale power plant to make electricity to power an EV is more efficient than burning it to directly power a vehicle. But certainly there are applications that make sense.
Keep in mind though methane capture from waste can only scale so much and trying to produce more would defeat the purpose. We won't be in danger of running out of lithium anytime soon, it is one of the most common elements in the planet's crust and there is a lot of it in the ocean. Any shortage is going to be market driven which, while lithium is abundant, accessing much of it can be difficult and expensive. Remember that batteries are almost entirely recyclable though so you get a really long life out of it once you've mined it.
FrolfLarper t1_itwlo0o wrote
I’m not trying to die on this hill, but just throwing the cow shit in a digester doesn’t capture all their emissions. They burp and fart too. Deep decarbonization will either require dialing back beef/dairy production or massive offsets. Probably both.
BTW I’m not poo pooing the poo poo choo choo.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw3v3p wrote
That still makes it CO2 sourced from and that will return to the atmosphere anyways. I agree our farming practices are unsustainable but they don't conjure new carbon atoms into existence and not utilizing the resource that exists anyways, and in a more harmful form than the CO2 it is destined to return to regardless because of a different, tangentially related issue is ironically a whataboutism.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itw1w86 wrote
It. Does. Not. Exist. Anyways.
Its industrial byproduct.
How is that so hard for you to understand.
Quit repeating the same thing I answered already over and over again and actually engage with what I'm saying.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw2ujm wrote
It does exist anyways because it's byproduct of natural biological processes which occur anyways. If nothing happened to it, it would be CO2 in the atmosphere anyways, if we did nothing it would return to the atmosphere and spend 20 years as methane before becoming CO2 again anyways.
How is that so hard for you to understand?
I did engage with what you said, I informed you of the scientific reality and you're just repeating the same thing instead of actually engaging with that information.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itw98vu wrote
Holy shit.
Do you actually believe all that manure just naturally exists?
I swear, you are either stone cold stupid or avoiding the issue.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwad3m wrote
So you honestly believe that cows just conjure those atoms into existence lol?
You are stone cold stupid, no avoiding that issue.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwhdkn wrote
.... buddy.....
Why do you thunk there are so many cows....
You can't be that stupid.....
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwhvrd wrote
.... buddy.....
where do you think cows get all that carbon?
You evidently are that stupid.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwmxtx wrote
So, to sum up, you are unable to just admit that the methane comes from an unnecessary source that can be eliminated without burning more carbon, are doggedly insisting that its carbon neutral when its not, and seem to think your misunderstanding of the carbon cycle is a gotcha.
Dude, just give it up.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwniyh wrote
So, to sum it up, you are just unable to admit that you have zero understanding of biochemistry and the carbon cycle and are going to continue insisting that cows are magic matter generators because adjusting your position to the science would mean changing your worldview, so it's easier for you to maintain cognitive dissonance and call the other person stupid than to think too hard about it.
Just give it up, you were never attempting in argue in good faith or cared about having a real understanding of the process.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwo98x wrote
My god.
Ok, i guess i have to spell it out for you:
The manure comes from the meat and dairy industry. Its not natural. Its industrial waste. We can eliminate that source. You have to pretend i..... think cows magically materialize matter.... because I already explained to you that carbon cycle isn't that simple and you can't wrap your head around that.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwt6gg wrote
WHERE DO COWS GET THAT CARBON THEN HOOVER? HUH? Do you think because we farm them they magically make more?
No of course not, that's ridiculous, they get it from the plants they eat, which get it from the atmosphere. Why can't you wrap your head around that? You want to argue about our unsustainable farming practices and our need to address that? yeah okay, I agree, does that magically make cows make more carbon atoms? No, so stop being ridiculous.
That CO2 existed, in the atmosphere already, it was sequestered by plants, and would have, in one way or another, through biological decay, ended up back in the atmosphere as carbon after spending some time as methane.
All we're doing here is capturing some of that methane from waste, skipping the 20 years it would have spent as an 80x more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 it will end up as in the atmosphere anyways.
No new carbon is added here. If you think there is, you think somewhere along this process new carbon atoms came into existence, they did not.
Pretending otherwise, and that converting it back into CO2 sooner isn't better than leaving it as methane releasing into the atmosphere at 80x potency, and burning a fossil fuel that is adding new carbon, is simply science denial.
You CANNOT eliminate that CO2 or methane, which is already in the environment, simply by not raising cattle. It's still there, you didn't eliminate squat. The source IS THE ATMOSPHERE.
Is that spelled out enough for you, or are you going to keep repeating the same nonsense, learn nothing, and angrily shake your fist at the sky because the real world isn't what you think it should be?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwx3fm wrote
Holy shit.
My guy.
If you don't breed the cows they don't produce methane.
The two choices aren't in the atmosphere or in the cows.
The actual fuck is going on inside your brain.
The concentration of carbon also isn't the problem. The volume of greenhouse gasses is the problem. And methane is way worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas.
You are actually braindead..... you have no clue how any of this works and apparently think you do which is worrying....
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwxmx9 wrote
> If you don't breed the cows they don't produce methane.
Right, but that methane still gets produced from the biomatter decay that otherwise still occurs, or if you want to go the route of crops we raise to feed the cattle, the CO2 is still in the atmosphere in the first place.
> The two choices aren't in the atmosphere or in the cows.
One of the choices isn't doesn't exist though. That carbon is going to still be in the atmosphere, be sequestered by plants, that goes into other food sources for humans, because people still gotta eat and you need to replace the cows with something, and that's still going to end up back in the atmosphere.
> The actual fuck is going on inside your brain.
Uh, Science, reality, What's going on in yours? blind hatred of cows?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwzfhy wrote
No..... it doesn't.....
The methane comes specifically from the manure made by the cows.
It doesn't just magically exist otherwise.
Its truly mind boggling you are still going. You're argument is that no matter what the same amount of methane is always going to be produced.
If you use, ie, plant based substitutes, then all that extra methane from the cows is gone. It doesn't magically happen elsewhere, it is a source that doesn't exist anymore.
How are you this dumb. You aren't using science you are making absolutely herculean acts of moon logic.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itx041b wrote
Do I need to draw you a diagram?
You're the one arguing that new carbon is somehow conjured into existence, and also somehow that not converting methane into the CO2 it will eventually become anyways is somehow better than letting it exist as an 80x more potent greenhouse gas for the 20 years it takes to decay.
>If you use, ie, plant based substitutes, then all that extra methane from the cows is gone.
No, it isn't, decay from the waste products still happens, you still produce methane and CO2 as waste from metabolizing. That carbon doesn't just cease to exist.
>How are you this dumb. You aren't using science you are making absolutely herculean acts of moon logic.
You, expect no logic can be found.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itx5ctw wrote
Oh.
My.
God.
If. You. Don't. Breed. The. Cows. That. Methane. Doesn't. Get. Produced.
Period.
There is no other matter that decays into methane.
Also "carbon conjured from nothing"???? What on earth are you talking about????
Like, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itx8oha wrote
You couldn't be more wrong lol. You realize a lot of this methane capture we do is from landfills right? bacteria in tons of organisms and the decay there of, produce methane. It isn't unique to cows. How do you think all that natural gas was produced before there were cows exactly?
And I will once again point out that, concern about an increase in methane that exists at the same time, although it will also decay back into CO2 at the same rate, is an argument for not against burning it to convert it back to the CO2 it was and will reenter the atmosphere as even if we didn't do anything. However, this will skip the 20 years it would take to naturally decay to CO2 and H2O.
> Also "carbon conjured from nothing"???? What on earth are you talking about????
You keep insisting cows somehow add carbon but they don't. They, like all other animals, get their carbon from plant or other animal sources which, ultimately, get it from the atmosphere. No new carbon is introduced in this process yet you insist otherwise as if it just spawns into existence.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itx9f9t wrote
Uh..... ok? We are talking about the meat industry.... why are you talking about landfills....
You are insane, you know that?
I also never said cows add new carbon to the world. I said that the cycle is not carbon neutral. There is a net addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Please, go get checked out. Im not replying to anymore of your batshit responses.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itxb1jm wrote
>Uh..... ok? We are talking about the meat industry.... why are you talking about landfills....
No, we're talking about capturing methane from waste to burn as fuel, thereby preventing it's otherwise release into the atmosphere and it is carbon neutral despite emitting CO2 because that carbon came from and would decay back into CO2 anyways, so no new carbon is being produced.
>You are insane, you know that?
What do you call yourself repeating the same nonsense in total denial of any scientific reality?
>I also never said cows add new carbon to the world.
Yes you did, multiple times, it's all there in the scrollback.
Your responses have been nothing but batshit and literally advocating for more harm simply because you don't understand the biochemistry here.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments