• 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Almost, yes. It should be close enough as an estimate.

    If you want to be precise, one thing you want to be careful about is that not every fuel releases the same amount of energy per kg of CO2. So you should be comparing to the CO2 released by whatever is being replaced by the biofuel (most likely fossil fuel), not the biofuel itself.

    Another consideration is how much CO2 is released by the production of the biofuel compared to what it is replacing. Since farming equipment, transportation etc. all could produce CO2.


  • A very good question.

    It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon © in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don’t really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.

    So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you “recycle” the same Carbon.












  • I disagree. Sure, for some larger crucial projects, companies would pay. But for the majority of (small) projects, we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy. The result would be wasted additional effort, inferior features and more bugs.

    And even if that was not the case and bureaucracy was not an issue, the question is how much better would the paid for “professional” FOSS software be compared to the free one. If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway. And if it is not, then by definition it is better we use the free one.





  • Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users

    A lot of people don’t care.

    Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?

    Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, …)

    In addition, as a developer for a corp, I can tell you having to pay for a license would prevent me from using most smaller libraries because the process of getting it approved and paid is too difficult, even if the money is not an issue.