Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why not biomass? For millions of years the nature balanced CO2 itself with plants, water cycle and fires. Massive reforestation would help with water retention problems, biodiversity etc.

Solar, wind, batteries, nuclear sound big but they are not environmentally neutral (massive and toxic mining of rare materials, noise, poluting production, toxic recycling, disruption of airflow[1]).

Burning fosil fuels is dead-end way but do we want to make this planet a complete artificial wasteland full of solar panel, wind farm, battery and radioactive landfills because "we wanted to stop CO2 emissions at all costs"?

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-...






Simply put: biomass is not a good technology. You need huge,huge fields to produce enough crops for turning into biofuels. Those fields need water, space, pesticides, and labor, it's simply not economical compared to solar or wind on the same location.

Massive biomass plantations don't really help biodiversity. The arable land of the earth that isn't already used for growing food or cities is desperately needed for nature.

And as another poster already pointed out, biofuels are horribly poor in terms of energy produced per area. There's simply not enough land on the earth to produce enough biofuel to run our civilization.

For a most egregious example of this, see the ongoing disaster in Indonesia where pristine rainforests are cleared away to make room for palm oil plantations, so us Westerners can feel good about using biofuels. Heartbreaking.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: