News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by StavrosK on Sunday March 14, 2021 @08:42PM (#26461238)
"Carbon neutral" isn't the same as "non-polluting". "All" you need to be carbon neutral is to not burn fossil fuels for your energy.
Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by croutonwagon on Sunday March 14, 2021 @10:03PM (#26461818)
So. From a supply chain perspective.

Let’s say you go buy a Tesla or Volt. The cost to charge it at a station or even your house isn’t carbon neutral. It depends on how your local power is generated. In my gas that’s primarily natural gas.

Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle with all the catalytic converters and whatnot.

In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc.

Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by StavrosK on Sunday March 14, 2021 @10:09PM (#26461851)
> Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle

Yes. My power company gives me a green energy certificate, which means that all the money I pay for energy goes to green producers.

> the catalytic converters and whatnot.

You're conflating pollution with carbon emissions. The only thing that matters to carbon emissions is mass of fuel burnt.

> In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc.

Same here.

Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by astrange on Monday March 15, 2021 @06:46AM (#26464391)
Burning hydrocarbons can be (more) carbon-neutral if we synthesize them. The reason it's not is that we dig them out of the ground and then don't put them back in the ground afterwards.

Of course we seem to be going for using batteries instead, but this will likely be needed for energy-dense uses like heating and aircraft.

Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by astrange on Sunday March 14, 2021 @08:52PM (#26461308)
Yeah, but we don’t know if this kelp thing is because of CO2 emissions, and tire runoff actually does kill marine life in nearby rivers.
Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by StavrosK on Sunday March 14, 2021 @08:54PM (#26461328)
Certainly, I mean that carbon emissions are generally a bigger problem than pollution, so we should probably prioritize that first.
Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by astrange on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:33AM (#26462656)
Pollution is really bad. Like, it’s way worse than you’d think it is. Air pollution seems to have driven the entire country crazy for most of the 20th century, and if cities are as violent as they were in 1990 then nobody is going to be interested in saving energy by living in them.
Re:Satellite imagery shows Northern California kelp forests ... by sitkack on Sunday March 14, 2021 @09:25PM (#26461554)
You can't ignore local pollution while attempting to drive down global emissions.