[kyrra]

> People are dying every day due to fossil fuel caused pollution.

You don't dive into this in a single sentence, but I do want to raise the point that fossil fuels, while they are bad are better than the alternatives for many countries, especially developing ones. Let's consider some alternatives.

Wood and animal waste: for developing nations that need any energy they can get, they will burn these 2, which are massively worse than fossil fuels, and no where near as energy dense.

Coal: massive step up from the above. Yes it burns dirty, but there are capture methods to make coal cleaner.

Natural gas: one of the best out there. Low emissions and again, energy dense. Turned into LNG, it's easy to transport and use elsewhere.

Nothing... This is the point that I think lots of people miss. Having access to energy dense materials like coal or LNG are a major factor in bring developing nation people out of poverty. Not having these "dirty" energy sources that kill some is way worse than not having it at all (more people will die without the energy).

People need to be reasonable and realize that rich nations can go nuclear and renewable, but we still need to allow developing nations to have access to the others, even encourage it. That means first world nations need to produce more LNG and supply it wherever possible. Sadly many want to stop all fossil fuel production.

[Reason077]

> "Wood and animal waste"

Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas.

Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the developed world. We have better technology and far more options now.

[brnaftr361]

I've never actually sat down and worked it out, but it seems to me that this is more of a political buoy than legitimately optimized.

Once you factor in all the processing of certain biomass, specifically I recall a European nation, the UK perhaps, was burning wood product. Wood is significantly less energy dense than coal for instance... If your workers are driving to and from work, if you're cutting it down with two stroke chainsaws, loading it into trucks, packing it into trains... I think these factors were all removed from calculations to conclude it's "carbon neutral".

And for some reason, probably wrongly, I'd like to imagine leaving the trees up is more beneficial (even if the fuel is a byproduct of industry), but I can imagine during a tree's lifecycle there's a "peak sequestration" age/size they're maybe targeting.

[Reason077]

You're quite right that wood biomass is not fully carbon-neutral when fossil fuels are expended in harvesting it and transporting it.

UK biomass is estimated to have a total-lifecycle carbon footprint of 230g CO2 per kWh. This is much worse than wind, solar, or nuclear. But still a very significant improvement on burning coal and natural gas! Compared to coal, it's about a 4x improvement.

[tablespoon]

> Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas.

And won't they decay, releasing the CO2, anyway? IIRC, I think I heard decay referred to as "slow fire."

The only bad aspect of biomass fuel that I can think of is that people might be tempted to cut down established forests to get it.

[cupofpython]

>The only bad aspect of biomass fuel

Let's not forget the simple logistical difficulty of using biomass. It is not as energy dense, which makes moving its own weight around more expensive too.

"The net energy ratio between energy output and input was 10.41.. Energy used for hauling hog fuel represented the largest part (36.27%) of the total energy input. The net energy ratio decreased 0.11 with each additional transportation mile

the net energy ratios reported here were on the high end of this range as energy input for possible active drying, storage, and final delivery was not included. " [0]

"The energy content was taken at 137,000 BTUs per gallon for diesel, and 125,000 BTUs per gallon for gasoline (Adams 1983)...

output: the mean HHV ranged from 8,946 to 9,105 BTUs/pound " [0]

A gallon weighs about 6 pounds, so it seems like pound-for-pound (pine-tree) biomass is less than half as productive as gasoline.*

Honestly, I was expecting worse. But over doubling energy costs isn't negligible, especially for poorer countries.

*this is at a glance work, not an actual deep dive

[0] Net energy output from harvesting small-diameter trees using a mechanized system Fei Pan Han-Sup Han Leonard R. Johnson

FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL VOL. 58, NO. 1/2 William J. Elliot

[pojzon]

> Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the developed world. We have better technology and far more options now.

They can only do so if we help them. Providing the technology FOR FREE.

Human race is slowly outgrowing the concept of money. Current system does not fit into the future we have ahead of us. And quite a bit of high profile ppl see that and are afraid of losing power.

[cwp]

What does renewability have to do with climate change?

[hypertele-Xii]

When you burn a tree, everything that's released into the atmosphere is something the tree absorbed from the atmosphere as it grew. So it's plus minus zero in terms of pollution.

When you burn non-renewables, i.e. stuff dug up from the ground, you're adding pollution into the atmosphere.

Pollution that changes the climate.

[titzer]

> Natural gas: one of the best out there. Low emissions

Per BTU heat output, natural gas outputs more than half as much CO2 (about 60%) compared to coal. That's not "low emissions" by any stretch.

Plus, the entire natural gas distribution system is leaky to an extent that is not fully understood yet. Recent reports suggest it is very leaky. Leaking...methane, which is 80-200x worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[martinald]

But keep in mind methane's halflife is 'only' ~8 years.

[twojacobtwo]

Keep in mind that this is really just a nicer-sounding way of saying that we get xxx-xxxx (can't be arsed to do the half-life based math at the moment) years worth of equivalent C02 warming in just 8 years. Given how global warming is accelerating toward/through various points-of-no-return, stopping to point out that it's 'only' 8 years is doing a disservice to the efforts of communicating the danger of our current situation.