▲ 41 ▼ Hank Hill would be proud (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/spaceflightmemes@sh.itjust.works 14 comments fedilink hide all child comments Credit: u/Planck_Savagery
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (9 children) Ok, but how is propane "clean"? permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) That's the neat part about clean energy, it doesn't mean anything. It's a term made up by the energy industry to compete with the idea of green energy so that people conflate the two. What is meant by clean energy in this context is that it doesn't produce unwanted products from side reactions. It just makes CO2 and H2O unlike say coal which can produce SOx and NOx or Bunker fuel used in container ships which creates all sorts of nasty shit when it burns. Green energy on the other hand means that it produces very little if any CO2. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jobe@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago (2 children) RP1, wich is used by Falcon 9 and others, has more combustion products that aren't just CO₂ or H₂O than propane. Still not 'clean' as in 'no global warming potential' but probably a liiiitle bit better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) So, greenwashing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Jobe@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago Pretty much. permalink fedilink source parent [–] klankin@piefed.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) You can technically burn tires for energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago They absolutely do burn tires in cement kilns. permalink fedilink source parent [–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) Less soot than kerosene. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) And kerosene is clean, because it has less soot than raw oil? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago Relatively speaking, I suppose it would be. Though rocket engines tend to be pretty delicate, and I'm not aware of any which could stomach stright-up raw oil. Even the "kerosene" used in kerolox engines is a riffled form of kerosene known as RP-1. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) That's the neat part about clean energy, it doesn't mean anything. It's a term made up by the energy industry to compete with the idea of green energy so that people conflate the two. What is meant by clean energy in this context is that it doesn't produce unwanted products from side reactions. It just makes CO2 and H2O unlike say coal which can produce SOx and NOx or Bunker fuel used in container ships which creates all sorts of nasty shit when it burns. Green energy on the other hand means that it produces very little if any CO2. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jobe@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago (2 children) RP1, wich is used by Falcon 9 and others, has more combustion products that aren't just CO₂ or H₂O than propane. Still not 'clean' as in 'no global warming potential' but probably a liiiitle bit better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) So, greenwashing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Jobe@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago Pretty much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) So, greenwashing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Jobe@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago Pretty much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] klankin@piefed.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) You can technically burn tires for energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago They absolutely do burn tires in cement kilns. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fake@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago They absolutely do burn tires in cement kilns. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) Less soot than kerosene. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) And kerosene is clean, because it has less soot than raw oil? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago Relatively speaking, I suppose it would be. Though rocket engines tend to be pretty delicate, and I'm not aware of any which could stomach stright-up raw oil. Even the "kerosene" used in kerolox engines is a riffled form of kerosene known as RP-1. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) And kerosene is clean, because it has less soot than raw oil? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago Relatively speaking, I suppose it would be. Though rocket engines tend to be pretty delicate, and I'm not aware of any which could stomach stright-up raw oil. Even the "kerosene" used in kerolox engines is a riffled form of kerosene known as RP-1. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 1 week ago Relatively speaking, I suppose it would be. Though rocket engines tend to be pretty delicate, and I'm not aware of any which could stomach stright-up raw oil. Even the "kerosene" used in kerolox engines is a riffled form of kerosene known as RP-1. permalink fedilink source parent