this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
214 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

79576 readers
4017 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes it is. And nowhere is stayed how efficient it is (only their "target" which is worth less than toilet paper because it isn't true).

[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.

Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is just wrong, except if you live in some theory reality. It's like saying if a car can go a hundred miles in a hundred years it'll get there.

There's a reason why people don't build small dinky toys like this and efficiency is why, anong other things like that pesky "cost".

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Please do explain how it’s wrong. Go on, I’ll wait.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The cost of that thingy outweights the benefits. It misses out economy of scale that you get in big plants. Even with "free" electricity, It's probably making both more expensive gas and is worse for the climate when you throw it away after it breaks down for the twelfth time in a year and you wonder why it cost so much initially.

But you think it's kind of neat I guess.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

No I’m asking you to explain how it’s not carbon neutral. I do not give one shit about the cost, I do not give one shit about how much the gas it produces costs (for reference the Porsche plant is at over $40 a LITER). You have stated it’s not carbon neutral. Explain how. If the machine does what it says then it is carbon neutral.

I have an electric car, I do not care about this machine. But I do care when people claim something and have zero evidence to back it up.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Dude, it's su fucking non carbon neutral you must be trolling.

First of all it's a prototype, all the building cost, materials etc all have a carbon cost. The free electricity too has a carbon cost. All the money you want to theow at it, guess what? It has a carbon footprint.

You're just angry it's not a miracle machine.