cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/energy@slrpnk.net/p/1799048/solid-state-battery-hits-381-wh-kg-as-taiwan-mass-production-begins
cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/energy@slrpnk.net/p/1799048/solid-state-battery-hits-381-wh-kg-as-taiwan-mass-production-begins
But that has the same emissions issue as the current fuel
That’s a whole different debate. I tend to agree that they are less ideal, that their proponents say, but they are actually renewable. They don’t add durably CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil sources. It is a very different thing. The CO2 they emit is part of a cycle. Ideally, that’s also a type of emission that we cut, but it is possible to include them in a sustainable society.
Biofuel is a dead-end technology. Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel, while also avoiding wasting all the extra nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen - some of which are scarce) needed for the plant to grow that give nothing in terms of energy storage and must be recaptured.
A bunch of solar panels and some direct air -> methanol plants uses far less land than corn fields for bioethanol, while also providing easy avenues to switch energy from feeding the grid to filling the tanks depending on conditions.
CO2 is not the only emission and pollution in the high atmosphere is even more damaging than on the ground.
Which pollution are you thinking of?
Well incomplete combustion, which is unavoidable, produces carbon monoxide, VOCs, soot, and unburned fuel. All which would be dumped into the high atmosphere.
I know these are bad for human health, but are they bad for the environment in these quantities and at this altitude?
Unburned fuel is an order of magnitude worse for the atmosphere than CO2. Plus you think only humans are poisoned by these things?