this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
144 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
79301 readers
3299 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral (as long as the energy source is renewable like the sun). Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was. It’s a much much better option than digging up oil.
On top of that, there are currently no likely possibilities of replacing gasoline for things like planes. So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.
Except it won't be. Combustion is not a perfect CxHy O2 > CO2 + H2O reaction. Theres a bunch of other side reactions happening, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. There are lots of challenges to continuing to utilize hydrocarbon fuels, especially in mobile/small scale applications where you can't clean the exhaust stream.
The particulate matter won’t occur in a hydrocarbon that is generated, that comes from imperfect processing of crude. If you pull the carbon directly out of the air there are no particulates.
But yes it will still be carbon neutral. No additional carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.
None of the things you've described increase the carbon output.
What chemical reaction gets more carbon out than it puts in?
(Where do these new carbon atoms come from, fusion?)
If anything, those other products include non-gaseous compounds which sequester the carbon from the fuel into a solid resulting in a net-negative amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
Those side-products are not good, I'm not saying otherwise, but they are not additional carbon.
Referring to things as carbon neutral is typically shorthand for net neutral CO₂e (or net-zero) CO₂e.
You're pedantically right that the machine is not creating or destroying carbon atoms, but the things it does create have massive "carbon dioxide equivalence". Or, phrased differently: the emissions of this equipment are equivalent to emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
They also reek havoc on people's lungs.
This is worse than air, but better than doing nothing I suppose. The situation is not "improved by 100%". It's marginally better, but definitely not 100%.
Eh?
You take excess green power and use it to generate gasoline. You use that gasoline in a combustion engine. Where is the extra carbon coming from which makes this non neutral?
Right. Because none of it is a fucking coal mine. Which is the only thing that can provide "carbon output". Except a diamond mine, of course.
Sounds like someone needs to lower your temperature setting.
Yes it is. And nowhere is stayed how efficient it is (only their "target" which is worth less than toilet paper because it isn't true).
The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.
Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.
Battery electric aeroplanes aren't as far off as you might think, but you're technically correct that they don't currently exist.
No they do exist! But most scientists agree that we are unlikely to ever see commercial airliners using it, nor will freight liners use it. We would have to see ENORMOUS scientific improvements and many many many things that seem incredibly far fetched invented to get to that point.
You overstate your case, several firms are already at various stages. Wright Electric is working on a >500km range passenger craft for easyJet right now. That won't be able to fill every role, but a worthwhile number of them to be sure.
If you could link that it would be great. As far as I understand it, a commercial passenger plane (which holds several hundred people) is no where close to being possible. If you are talking about small planes that hold maximum ten-15 people then sure.
For planes there's a catalytic process that can turn ethanol into jet fuel.
Well, it shouldn't be carbon neutral... It should used to get carbon out of the atmosphere and into a less damaging substance.
Carbon capture does not replace getting rid of our dependency on burning fossil fuels.
We wouldn't get back the same amount that we are burning anyway. So this approach is worse, because dumb people think it would save us, without us changing the way we produce energy.
It is worse, because it is a distraction from actually doing something.
Until we get rid of the necessity for gasoline, this is better than extracting new fossil fuels and might be better than biofuels produced far away.
Also, I don't think any form of carbon capture from atmosphere is realistic at scale to reduce CO2. You need atv least as much energy as we are burning just to keep up, and that's assuming 100% efficiency which is impossible. Focusing on reducing new CO2 emitted seems more effective
There is no such thing as "carbon neutral". Nor is there a problem with carbon. You're talking about carbon dioxide which is as close to carbon as table salt is to chlorine.
You're deliberately ignoring the fact that in vernacular terms, "carbon" is used to refer to "carbon dioxide" in contexts where the meaning is obvious.
People using the term that way aren't "morons" with "no clue about chemistry." They're just using a commonly-understood shorthand for saying "carbon dioxide." They understand perfectly well that carbon dioxide has a molecular structure of CO2. You're being willfully obtuse. [Edit: People also sometimes refer to table salt as "sodium," so your example is really poorly thought-out.]
Also, while there's a commentary to be made about corporate greenwashing using phrases like "carbon neutral" and "net zero" to mask their true impacts on the environment, there certainly is such thing as "carbon neutral," and it absolutely is a scientifically useful term.
Going for a walk is a carbon neutral activity, unless you happen to fart. Planting trees to compensate for burning fossil fuels is not carbon neutral, although it may meet the regulatory definition required of corporations to use the term. That doesn't mean the concept itself is mythical.
Planting trees or sowing a wildflower meadow is carbon-negative. While that can't displace emissions from regularly burning fossil fuels, it might neutralize the carbon-positive processes of manufacturing a bicycle, meaning riding your bike to work might also be carbon neutral.
A circular-process that only emits as much C02 as it removes from the atmosphere is, by definition, carbon-neutral. And rejecting novel processes solely because the concept didn't exist previously is nothing short of dogmatism.
You can vote me down as much as you want. You still have no clue of chemistry - or anything else you're babbling about. Morons.
How about you go argue with the scientists calling it carbon neutral. My wife literally works in the field. It’s called carbon neutral.