Would’ve been better if you had used a photo with an actual tree instead of a rock.
And an actual algae instead of a great wall of China
I thought it was more like 70%. You're doing algae bad here.
to be fair I am currently failing algae bruh
No algae ever kept me cool in the shade on a sunny day.
Wise men ~~plant~~ bioengineer algae whose oxygen they will never breathe?
Yea sure, keep bragging about your height
Plankton? Is it you?
I'm not scale shaming, just to be clear. I'm shaming you for what you have done
But don't take it personal
They have for me - albeit I was swimming in an untreated lake at the time.
No, but maybe we can make that happen.
Well, they also have 70% of the earths surface while trees only have 30%
Technically speaking, trees are just structures that evolved to hold up that same algae anyway.
Sounds like we need to genetically engineer super algae.
That is already happening iirc and being sold as another bullshit tech solution to our energy problems. Its like carbon offsets or carbon capture. Like bro just use less fossil fuels and stop destroying the existing natural carbon capture systems ffs.
Something like this?
All the biofuel things are just burning more stuff for energy, which we need to stop yesterday. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I think there are definitely some specific cases where it makes sense. For example garbage dumps (and compost facilities as well, I think) produce tons of methane and other unpleasant flammable gases which often get flared off, it seems only reasonable that if you're gonna be burning the gas anyway that you might as well use that heat to spin a turbine instead of just fuelling a uselessly burning flame on a pole.
In theory biofuel is perfectly carbon-neutral if you're growing all the input biomass yourself, since all the carbon released when the fuel is burned is carbon which was captured during the growth stage. But in practice it's not ideal:
If the biofuel is being produced from like agricultural byproducts (e.g. the stalks of harvested crops) I don't think there's really a problem, but AFAIK most of that stuff gets used for compost or gets left on fields to put nutrients back in the soil (and because it's cheaper and easier to leave it than having to collect it again).
You're not wrong at all, the worst part is even the "cleanest" of fuels will need to be refined, trasported (burning more fuel and rubber). If one were to live in the middle of nowhere without electricity or sun or wind or geothermal etc...then it starts making sense. So almost never
Biofuel is to make something to burn for fuel. Ethanol is a biofuel.
Rock Papa Swingers.
Trees capture more carbon though
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
