I'm not talking about geological time though. I'm talking about over the lifetime of the power plant - which is the only timescale that's relevant to this.
The transport of the fuel is important, but if there's a way of offsetting that (and the plant operators seem to think they can) then I see no reason why it can't be carbon neutral.
Of course we all know the best option for low-carbon power generation would be nuclear, but we can't have that can we?
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Fri 9 Aug 2024, 17:22,
Share,
Reply)
I expect that the only way they can make this business model 'carbon neutral' by 2030 is to buy carbon credits from Elon Musk, or use some other creative accountancy trick.
Otherwise, as far as I can tell, they need, within 5.5 years, to create a sustainable fleet of carbon neutral vehicles (and associated carbon neutral supply chains, which nobody has yet managed to do) to transport millions of tonnes of carbon neutrally produced North American woodchips (ditto), to be burned at their plant in Yorkshire where they will have designed and built, carbon neutrally (ditto), a fully closed-cycle, carbon-sequestering, carbon-negative furnace (ditto).
I really hope they can, but realistically this is an environmental disaster hiding behind corporate greenwashing PR bullshit. Go nuclear now!
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Fri 9 Aug 2024, 19:32,
Share,
Reply)