Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thisischemistry t1_itusmln wrote

Reply to comment by NekuraHitokage in Move over, diesel: Ohio gets ‘first of its kind’ renewable gas station by redingerforcongress

> Burning methane still produces carbon dioxide. That isn't "clean."

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. They estimate this by using carbon dioxide as a baseline and calculating the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane. With this measure the GWP is how many multiples of the energy absorbed by the material vs that of carbon dioxide.

Methane Vs CO2: Which Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas As White House Unveils New Pledge

> Methane has a GWP of between 28 and 36 over 100 years, according to the EPA, meaning it is significantly more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

This is the equation for burning methane: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

That means that each liter of methane will produce one liter of carbon dioxide (equal moles are roughly equal volumes for gasses at the same temperature and pressure). So burning a liter of methane instead of releasing it is about the equivalent of saving 30 liters of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in terms of global warming. This doesn't include using the energy produced to reduce the amount of diesel that doesn't need to be burned to run vehicles.

That means the process the article is talking about is significantly more "clean" environmentally.

7

NekuraHitokage t1_itux6ve wrote

I stated that rather simply in another comment, but the point of the matter is that we are at a point that we need to eliminate all greenhouse gasses.

Switching from a flamethrower to a match doesn't stop the old wood house from catching on fire.

1

thisischemistry t1_ituy9zp wrote

Right, this is simply a bridge. It's much better than allowing methane to be released into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide to be produced from burning diesel fuel. Eventually both methane and carbon dioxide production should be reduced as much as possible through other methods.

It will take time to make that kind of transition and this is a good intermediate solution until we get there.

3

NekuraHitokage t1_ituzmc0 wrote

That i will agree with, I'm just absolutely livid that they have the gall to call it "clean" when it's been given the equivalant of spitting on an apple and rubbing it on your shirt.

I never said it wasn't a neat idea or that it didn't have its uses, but it isn't "clean" for heavens sake. That's just more misleading bs that people will eat up and ignore until "ohhh nooo, but they said it was cleeeaaaan" 80 years into the future.

1

thisischemistry t1_itv05ik wrote

Calling something "clean" is a relative term. Pretty much everything is "dirty" in some sense but it can be less so than earlier methods. This idea is more "clean" than what it supplants. There are also ideas that are more "clean" than this one, but which aren't ideal at this time.

To be fair, here's what the article said:

> However, a CEFC spokeswoman added it would be open to taking on additional local fleets interested in trying the cleaner fuel.

They didn't call it "clean", just "cleaner". Yes, the company is named Clean Energy Fuels Corporation so that's a bit misleading but I can forgive it since that's a marketing thing. Calling them Cleaner Energy Fuels Corporation doesn't really ring as well.

4

NekuraHitokage t1_itv1kmn wrote

That's what they say in an article, but all any consumer will ever see is their name and their marketing claims.

Marketing can't just be written off an forgiven, it's the only "education" on the subject matter some people ever get. They're happy to tell a newsperson the truth because they know the average person rolling up and filling their tank didn't read it. They saw "BIOCLEAN!" and heard some marketer say "We're trapping methane and turning it into fuel, keeping the methane out of the atmosphere and helping to fight climate change!"

Then they go in thinking "wow, isn't this great. I'm doing my part!" All the whioe we ignore the CO2 emissions for another 20 years because it's "not as bad" and most people don't realize it's even producing CO2.

Then you have to tell people this beautiful clean coa- sorry, methane they've been burning is actually bad now and they need to stop. Now you're trying to wrest the wheel in a direction we could have been driving in 20 years ago, but someone's marketing team came up with a real good pitch and bent the truth just so.

It isn't marketing. It's lying.

1