108

NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by zhunk@beehaw.org to c/space@beehaw.org

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

Natural gas can be green too. You can extract it from landfills or from bioreactors of organic waste.

[-] zik@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

But still... you're burning hydrocarbons so you end up producing a lot of CO2 which is going straight into the atmosphere. That's not what I'd call super green.

[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 year ago

It’s carbon that’s already part of the carbon cycle. Like burning wood or consuming food.

The carbon to worry about is the stuff we’re extracting from underground.

[-] Rekliner@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

And where are the bioreactors located? What would happen to that carbon if it weren't collected by the reactors?

I agree its better than mined gas, it falls under the 3Rs, but it's still taking carbon from the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere.

In the grand scheme of things the deus ex machina of fusion is the only long term solution.

[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it’s capture from a landfill, it’d likely be released as methane directly into the atmosphere.

If it’s made from things like chaff, it often gets simply burnt and released immediately back as CO2 into the atmosphere. No difference but significant usable energy.