Well, in theory Biofuels are carbon neutral...in theory... but the problem with these is it isn't 100% biodiesel and the goal is to reduce carbon use, not be carbon neutral.
I think Bio fuels will continue to have some place in the mix, but they won't be advertised much. They don't represent "the goal."
There are two broad approaches here: I call them zero-net-carbon and zero-carbon.
The premise of the former is to stop further release of 'fossil' carbon by using only renewable sources (such as biodiesel) that 'recycle' carbon already in the atmosphere.
The premise of the latter is to speed up a decrease in atmospheric carbon by eliminating carbon emission entirely -- pure BEVs, hydrogen carrier, wind and solar 'renewable energy'. This latter appears to have gained significant traction (pun not intended) in the last couple of years, with the usual 'good is enemy of the better' strife between proponents of the two approaches.
To some extent the 'zero carbon' push is intended to lower the effect of fossil carbon release by countries 'exploiting' their ability to continue heavy fossil use. This is a commendable virtue signal but requires some changes in cost and availability of power that I think will dramatically increase its per-kilowatt cost over zero-bet-carbon approaches.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.