|
|
|
|
|
|
by Angostura
942 days ago
|
|
|
In theory, its sustainable, because the fuel is being created from CO2 captured from the air by photosynthesis - so burning it doesn't add to the overall atmospheric CO2. Unlike fossil fuels where you are digging up CO2 and adding it to the atmosphere. In practice it's rather more complex than that. |
|
|
An essential detail: the CO2 would have been back in the atmosphere soon, regardless of its use. We need less CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of who, what, when, or how it got there or how it's removed.
The method of capture doesn't matter. Atmospheric carbon capture devices would be just as good, if they worked efficiently.
If you capture CO2 in a way that would keep it from the atmosphere long-term, then releasing it again is obviously not a good idea.
If you grow corn, you capture CO2. But the corn will soon die and (if I understand correctly) release the CO2 again, so you might as well use the corn for your fuel and release the CO2 that way.
However: If you plant a field with corn for fuel instead of with longer term carbon capture options (e.g., certain types of trees), it seems like a loss. It's better than digging up CO2 that's already stored long term (fossil fuels) and adding it to the atmosphere, but that's not good enough. We need to get CO2 out of the atmosphere.