> Simply put, the synthetic fuel operated much like normal gasoline would have, without the emission drawbacks of the latter.
Hmmm. The fuel is hydrocarbons; so the emissions are at minimum CO2 and particulates.
Hmmm. The fuel is hydrocarbons; so the emissions are at minimum CO2 and particulates.
One really has to distinguish between CO2 that would be emitted by the process in the current fossil fuel economy, vs. CO2 emitted when the world is off fossil fuels. In the latter, where do the carbon atoms come from if not from the biomass, and hence from the air?
It's similar to the farming industry producing incredible amounts of food just to feed cattle rather than to feed people. Not all crops grow on all land, of course, but as long as there are large scale famines in the world, I think it's immoral to dedicate so much land towards inedible foodstuffs.
We're already burning forests under the guise of "renewable fuels" that assume we've assured that the forests are allowed grow back the next 100 years even when biofuels are no longer profitable.
There are good reasons to rid ourselves from fossil fuels where we can, not just because of global warming but also because of political reasons (the oil states getting away with literal murder and a blind eye being turned towards their funding of what would become 9/11, for one). However, I fear that these plant based "alternatives" will be quickly bought up by the oil industry, touted as the future of green energy, and used to postpone greener alternatives to the internal combustion engine yet another decade.
The Porsche/Exxon syn fuel uses natural gas as it's feedstock, for instance.
I'm pretty sure the Mazda pr guy was just smart enough to omit that detail, not that they are hiding it's magical eco friendly origins.
https://coryton.com/lab/articles/the-opportunity-for-sustain...