this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
112 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

79233 readers
3667 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 16 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was.

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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Except it won’t be.

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.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 1 points 40 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral

So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.

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%.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org -3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

None of the things you've described increase the carbon output.

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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Sounds like someone needs to lower your temperature setting.