Used to extract fossil fuels, the field is now getting a second lease on life as a means of permanently storing planet-warming carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.
If you take them by their word, it sounds perfect.
I'm worried about Ineos' ulterior motives. It would not take a lot of change or investment to start up EOR there if any drilling equipment is still in place.
You don't understand... We already know it doesn't work. They've been doing this for decades, they've recently started green washing this fracking technique
And in case you didn't know, there's dozens of oil wells leaking right now. Some is oil in the ocean, some natural gas, some of it is burning underground... And there's just no known way to stop it. You can't just seal them back up when you're done, the structure of the rock is damaged
And all of the aside, this doesn't math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air, and to even make a dent we'd have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface... It's a dead end tech.
A distraction from the truth... We just have to reduce emissions. It's that simple, we have to do it before the systems that keep Earth stable flip and accelerate warming
And all of the aside, this doesn't math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air
They aren't taking it out of the air. They are taking it out of smoke stacks. It's far easier to pull it out of highly concentrated sources like smoke stacks than to try to pull it directly out of the atmosphere.
we'd have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface...
You're describing biofuels. Vegetation "condenses" the CO2 out of the atmosphere, incorporating it into carbohydrates.
Burning biofuels, we produce H2O and CO2 in the smoke stacks. Every pound of CO2 pulled from the smoke stack is a pound removed from the atmosphere.
Any introduction of fossil fuels into the process defeats the purpose, but the underlying technology is theoretically feasible with biofuel carbon sources.
Ok… Come on now, I know you’ve been propagandized, and propaganda works, but let’s think this through
Please read what I wrote, not what you think I said.
If you capture CO2 out of smokestacks, what have you done?
It depends on where that carbon came from. If it came from petroleum or coal feedstocks, you've slightly reduced emissions. But, the carbon from biofuels originated from the atmosphere. Vegetation captured that CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and incorporated it into the biomass. Burning it converted the biomass into concentrated CO2 and H2O; we're capturing the concentrated CO2 out of that stream.
Again: this does not replace the need to suspend fossil fuels. But the specific process I described does, indeed, extract CO2 from the biosphere.
If we plow the vegetation under, we are burying the hydrogen and excess oxygen as well as the carbon. Burning it, we release the hydrogen (as water), but still bury the carbon.
If you're pulling CO2 out of the air, why in the world would you turn around and burn it???
That makes zero sense. For one, biofuels require processing, which means they might even be carbon positive before you burn it, and again, the scale needed to produce it in meaningful quantities is totally impractical.
And again, you can't just pump CO2 in the well and put an acme sized plug on it. The structure of the rock is destroyed by the process, it'll just leak out. We'd need an entirely new method to store it, which was never the plan here
This whole scheme is a fever dream designed to continue burning fossil fuels while siphoning away money from actual green movements
If you’re pulling CO2 out of the air, why in the world would you turn around and burn it???
Because the CO2 we pull out of the air is not in a form that we can feasibly sequester. It's padded with excessive hydrogen and oxygen into carbohydrate chains. When we burn that vegetation, we convert it to primarily to H2O, along with some CO2. Targeting the CO2 alone, we can sequester a lot more for the same energy and same volume.
The structure of the rock is destroyed by the process, it’ll just leak out.
That rock sequestered hydrocarbons from the biosphere for millions of years. It's not destroyed by the process. We use comparable methods for the strategic petroleum reserve and the national helium reserve.
This whole scheme is a fever dream designed to continue burning fossil fuels
That may be true. And yet, when used with non-fossil fuel sources, it does, indeed, serve to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than simply reducing the emission of CO2.
I get what you're saying, it sounds very reasonable conceptually. But the problem is that this is a chain so riddled with weak links it's infeasible
You're right about biofuel... Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible. That's a far more efficient CO2 sink than pure CO2, because the oxygen component is in the atmosphere
It's insane to burn biofuels to lower atmospheric CO2.
And as far as the process being non-destructive... This technology was developed to use pressured CO2 to break smaller pockets in the rock, it's like using a pressure chamber to deflate foam. Except the rocks aren't plastic until your get a whole lot deeper, and the amount of pressure means the whole well is being pressurized beyond a level it was ever at naturally
Can a big cavity in the Earth store gasses? Sure. Can an oil well? Maybe... But so far, the answer is it leaks
As for your last point... If you instead ask if we should cram biofuels in the ground? That's a way better idea, there's something to it. It's not a solution, it doesn't scale to the levels where we can keep using fossil fuels everywhere, but it would sequester C02 very effectively. Kind of like it was before we dug it up and burned it
You're right about biofuel... Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible.
Hydrocarbons.
Chains of hydrogen and carbon.
Your comment demonstrates you're not fully understanding the chemistry of the combustion. If you remove the "water" I am talking about, you wouldn't have a hydrocarbon. You would have only carbon.
The "water" I am talking about is the "hydro" part of the "hydrocarbon". That "hydro" does not become CO2 when it burns. That "hydro" becomes H2O.
When burning lighter hydrocarbons, the majority of the exhaust in the stack is actually water vapor rather than CO2. Putting that hydrogen into the ground, unburnt, provides no additional benefit over putting just the CO2 into the ground. It merely fills up the reservoir faster, and requires even more energy for the same amount of carbon sequestration. Burning that biomass, it is (theoretically) possible for the energy recovered (after powering sequestration operations) to be a net positive.
Sequestering the unburned biofuel without recovering that energy, the operation must be a net negative.
Yes, hydrogen, the smaller possible molecule, and carbon, which is smaller and lighter then oxygen
Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbon, aside from something like graphite.
Who cares what it becomes when you burn it? CO2 is obviously not the optimal carbon sink, even before you start considering things like long term stability
Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo
Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.
Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.
Of course volumetric density is what matters. That and long term stability
You know what is really good at storing carbon underground forever? Fossil fuels. And if they can pull it out of the ground, they should have no problem putting it back in... It's a lot simpler
Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.
Your arguments seem to assume that what you're putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.
Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture "wood mulch", or "corn stalks". While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.
Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.
What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?
You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass. You can bury solid biofuel, you can pump liquid biofuel, both are stable if you put them somewhere without much oxygen
Biomass is something different... Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land... It's that easy. It'll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There's so many better ways to do this
And CO2 is a fucking gas. Yes, it's liquid under pressure or at low enough temp... But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren't able to stay pressurized without leaking
Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this
You fail to comprehend the concept or need for "sequestering". What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. "Sequestration" locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.
You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.
Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.
And CO2 is a fucking gas
Not at the depths and pressures we're talking about.
But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking
I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we're talking about certainly are.
You can bury solid biofuel,
Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.
At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.
This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich "fertilizer" within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.
Your basic understanding of the concept of "sequestration" is irreparably flawed.
There are four main EOR techniques: carbon dioxide (CO2) injection, gas injection, thermal EOR, and chemical EOR. More advanced, speculative EOR techniques are sometimes called quaternary recovery.[4][5][6][7] Carbon dioxide injection, known as CO2-EOR, is the most common method. In this method, CO2 is injected into a depleted oil field and is mostly left underground.
CO2-EOR is usually performed using CO2 from naturally occurring underground deposits. It is also sometimes performed using CO2 captured from the flue gas of industrial facilities. When EOR is done using CO2 captured from flue gas, the process can prevent some emissions from escaping. However, there is controversy over whether the overall process is beneficial for the climate. EOR operations are energy-intensive, which leads to more emissions, and further emissions are produced when the recovered oil is burned.
To remain in a liquid state CO2 needs to be kept under several hundred PSI of pressure and kept fairly cool. Even at only 40F CO2 boils at about 550 PSIG. In above ground tanks you need to worry about elevated ambient temperatures and if that CO2 tank gets to be over about 88F then that CO2 just straight up can't be liquified. Above 88F you suddenly have a tank of supercritical CO2 which gets a bit more interesting to store for various reasons.
The deep ocean it actually a fairly ideal place to store liquid CO2 because it is cold and already under an immense amount of pressure.
The energy requirements for storing one ton of co2 are many many times higher than the energy gained from generating one ton of co2 (by oil, gas, coal or biofuel).
So each MWh spent "storing co2" would be ten times more efficient if used to offset oil extraction to get one MWh less out in the first place.
This is wasteful greenwashing. If it wasn't, we'd have broken physics on the level of making perpetual motion machines.
That's true but even if we switch entirely over green energy overnight, we'll still have Steel, still have Bauxite refining for Aluminum, etc, still have to melt and reform glass and aluminum recycled containers, etc, etc.
There are many processes that we really can't just get rid of, so they will need carbon capture to ensure they're not hurting the environment.
Wasn't there a story about CO2 under a lake in Africa being released naturally and killing a lot of people in the first several minutes because they couldn't breathe?
Can't they introduce something that can convert the CO2 to something safer, like microbes that can convert them to O2? If we're storing a problem long term, maybe we can have something that slowly make the problem go away and forget that it was initially a problem.
A l’issue du service, les jeunes sont automatiquement basculés dans la réserve opérationnelle dite de second niveau, qui existait du temps de la conscription. Celle-ci prévoit la mise à disposition de cinq jours par an pendant cinq ans en cas de besoin.
Le dispositif sera mis en place dès l’été prochain, avec un objectif de 3000 jeunes en 2026, a déclaré le chef de l’Etat ce jeudi 27 novembre lors d’un déplacement à Varces (Isère).
A court in Thailand has issued an arrest warrant for Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip, a co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization, in connection with a fraud case
It's frustrating to see this sort of thing, planning on Russia continuing to be a threat into the 2030's, when Europe could nullify the threat Russia poses by providing more direct support to Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has done more damage to russia than the 1990's, just imagine what could happen if they received more support.
Obligatory Fuck Trump and Fuck The American government you two faced putin knob jockeys.
Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip was charged with fraud then released on bail in 2023. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Tuesday.
Jakkaphong and her company, JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., were sued for allegedly defrauding Raweewat Maschamadol in selling him the company’s corporate bonds in 2023. Raweewat says the investment caused him to lose 30 million baht ($930,362).
Financially troubled JKN defaulted on payments to investors beginning in 2023 and began debt rehabilitation procedures with the Central Bankruptcy Court in 2024. The company says it has debts totaling about 3 billion baht ($93 million).
JKN acquired the rights to the Miss Universe pageant from IMG Worldwide LLC in 2022
There's more info in the article but for me the title just needed to say "for fraud" and I would have known I didn't care enough to read it. I figure some others might be similar
“What lies behind this,” said Petro, “is the same thing behind the war in Ukraine... petroleum,” noting the size and quality of Venezuela’s reserves. “In general, all of the wars of this century had to do with oil.”
If Trump were to get the upper hand, Petro suggested, the United States would get Venezuela’s oil “almost for free,” predicting that—“based on the evidence so far”—that the US will go to war over the resources.
Trump, said Petro, “is not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,” adding that Venezuela is not considered a major drug producer or transit point for most narcotics headed to the United States.
"He’s not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking," said the Latin American leader. "In general, all of the wars of this century had to do with oil."
“Venezuela for the American oil companies will be a field day because it will be more than a trillion dollars in economic activity.”
“American companies can go in and fix the oil rigs and everything that has to do with the Venezuelan petroleum companies, with oil and the derivatives.”
“The Venezuelans have the largest reserves of oil in the world, more than Saudi Arabia. This is going to be a windfall for us when it comes to fossil fuels.”
the fascist and zionists have figured out that they can say whatever they want out loud; the anti-left disinformation campaigns in the west have succeeded, so the only ones paying attention to what they say are the few of us who have a more than average awareness of how fucked up capitalism is.
“What lies behind this,” said Petro, “is the same thing behind the war in Ukraine... petroleum,” noting the size and quality of Venezuela’s reserves. “In general, all of the wars of this century had to do with oil.”
If Trump were to get the upper hand, Petro suggested, the United States would get Venezuela’s oil “almost for free,” predicting that—“based on the evidence so far”—that the US will go to war over the resources.
Trump, said Petro, “is not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,” adding that Venezuela is not considered a major drug producer or transit point for most narcotics headed to the United States.
Colombian President Petro Says Venezuela Oil 'At Heart' of Trump Aggression | Common Dreams
Jon Queally Nov 26, 2025
“What lies behind this,” said Petro, “is the same thing behind the war in Ukraine... petroleum,” noting the size and quality of Venezuela’s reserves. “In general, all of the wars of this century had to do with oil.”
If Trump were to get the upper hand, Petro suggested, the United States would get Venezuela’s oil “almost for free,” predicting that—“based on the evidence so far”—that the US will go to war over the resources.
Trump, said Petro, “is not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,” adding that Venezuela is not considered a major drug producer or transit point for most narcotics headed to the United States.
"He’s not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking," said the Latin American leader. "In general, all of the wars of this century had to do with oil."
The regions Russia has invaded have large unexploited oil and more importantly gas reserves. Not only that, but some of the gas pipeline, which supply Russian gas to the EU run through that region. So if Ukraine holds them, it is fairly easy to them to replace Russian gas.
For the US the war is extremely usefull. Russia gave the EU a somewhat independent energy supply. But the war against Ukraine is just too dangerous. Especially with Russia threatening EU countries on a regular bases. So they turned to other suppliers and the biggest oil and gas exporter is currently the US. Due to the war a third of fossil gas used by the EU is from the US right now. That is a huge dependence.
As for oil, Ukraine is obviosuly very willing to attack Russian oil infrastructure. So the US is litterally taking out a competitor fairly long term here.
Something similar was happening with Iran. Israel actually attacked some oil and gas infrastructure in Iran as well. Obviously the entire region is always close to explode again.
This is also a good move against China. They import a lot of oil from Russia, Venezuela and Iran. So if the US can control Venezuela and take out Russia and Iran, then it is able to really punish China in a war. That is why China is going for EVs, renewables and coal. They can have those inside China. Something similar is happening inside the EU as well, but less strategic.
Also back to Ukraine. It is more complex then that. Ukraine is culturally close to Russia, so them removing a dictator might well be a bad example to the Russian people, from Putins point of view. It also acted as a buffer between Russia and EU/NATO, has a lot of farm land and due to Soviet legacy an economy, which integrates well into Russia, as well as a lot of Russian speakers. The war also helps Putin internally, as an excuse to strengthen the hold over the country and remove competition.
“Venezuela for the American oil companies will be a field day because it will be more than a trillion dollars in economic activity.”
“American companies can go in and fix the oil rigs and everything that has to do with the Venezuelan petroleum companies, with oil and the derivatives.”
“The Venezuelans have the largest reserves of oil in the world, more than Saudi Arabia. This is going to be a windfall for us when it comes to fossil fuels.”
Western propaganda became so effective that it ultimately lobotomized its own creators as European leaders started mistaking their narrative dominance for actual material superiority.
It's always a treat to see the parasite that gave birth to the settler-colony get its just deserts even if it pales in comparison to what it ravaged..
I’m very against Roblox. I know a kid who had a really hard time with online predators and a lot of it stated with Roblox. He’s 19 now. He and I were talking about it recently.
Parents think Roblox is like Minecraft bc of the aesthetics of the game. But, Roblox is not a game with a chat feature, it’s a chat room with some games. That’s a big difference.
They have 380 million users. Around 60% of the user base is under the age of 16. 40% is under the age of 12. That’s 152 million mostly unmonitored kids.
I’m sure Roblox has gotten better moderation during that time, but in our experience predators meet kids on Roblox and get them to exchange Discord or other contact info with them.
Discord is also a problem here, but that’s for another rant in another thread. If you are concerned about your kids and want to discuss it with me, feel free to message me.
TLDR: DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS PLAY ROBLOX unless you are actively monitoring the game.
A friend's 8 year old daughter was asking to play Roblox recently and they reached out to me since it's in my current area of study and advised them against it due to the lack of responsibility that the corporation takes for their users.
I suggested that they introduce her to Vintage Story on a self hosted server instead. That way, they can control who has access and content.
I'm actually surprised at how many parents let their kids play Roblox unmonitored. I mean, why not let them go to the playground unmonitored instead?
I feel like when 'Zero Trust' first became a thing, the theme was 'you should have every endpoint under your control hardened so it need not feer untrusted peers being able to connect'. E.g. if you think you absolutely need VPN to a 'private network' for security, then you are failing to be hardened in a 'zero trust' way, because you implicitly fear that your systems would fall to untrusted peers.
I feel like it's evolved to 'don't let anything be able to connect to anything under your control unless you have admin privilege over it as well'. Which is particularly a nightmare when you try to collaborate between two companies, each balking at the other's hard requirement to have admin access to all network peers of interest.
Corporations really, really love being admin on everybody elses devices. See kernel level anticheat.
I feel like people have gotten zero trust (I don't need to trust anybody) confused with "I don't trust anybody".
I was listening to a podcast by packet pushers and they were like "So you meet a vendor, and they are like, 'So what do you think zero trust means? We can work with that'".
Bun has been acquired by Anthropic. Anthropic is betting on Bun as the infrastructure powering Claude Code, Claude Agent SDK, and future AI coding products & tools.
Japan is on high alert as another suspected Chinese drone has been spotted near Taiwan. The ongoing diplomatic spat between Tokyo and Beijing doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon.
And yet Chinese made defense systems have utterly failed in Pakistan and Iran. Any conflict involving Japan and China would pull the US in on the side of Japan. Redo those numbers and good luck with that.
Im concerned about two things when considering your argument.
The US has been doing everything in its power to piss everyone else off lately.
Fighting a war in Taiwan or Japan is going to be a lot harder for the US than it will be for China. Taiwan is 100 miles from China but 6800 miles from California.
Well it isn’t like Japan is invading China. Seems like they just want to make it clear they will in fact respond if China tries something with Taiwan. Japan doesn’t have to beat China, they just have to make it not worth it. And they’d have Taiwan and hopefully the US supporting them in that effort.
I just read about people struggling with Next loud in the OpenDesk thread and wanted to share this in case someone is interested in contributing to this project.
Looks really nice and seems like it should be a great foundation for future development. Personally I can't lose Nextcloud until there are sufficiently featureful and reliable clients for Linux, Windows, Android that synchronize a local copy and help manage the inevitable file deconfliction (Nextcloud Desktop only barely qualifies at this, but it does technically qualify and that represents the minimum viable product for me). I'm not sure a WebDav client alone is enough to satisfy this criteria, but I am not going to pretend I am actually familiar with any WebDav clients so maybe they already exist.
Im using the android client no problem. Not sure about the the desktop ones, if you want I cant do some basic testing and report back, just let me know which clients
I'm not sure which clients. I haven't installed opencloud, because I didn't see any clients for it on a cursory look. I tried nextcloud, but it kept failing after updates, so now I just use cron jobs to automate manual backup scripts I wrote to an external HDD. If you do test any desktop OC clients and find any "good enough" ones, I'll start with it : ) and if you don't get to test any, know that I still truly appreciate your offer!
I've tried several WebDav clients, and I've found that the great majority will work great. Their performance will depend on the server. For example, Nextcloud was slow. CopyParty was blazing fast, as if it was a local folder.
You might want to checkout CopyParty too, it's UX/UI sucks, but you don't need to see it, since you can use it with almost any client on any platform via any protocol.
To be honnest, Nextcloud is kinda a piece of shit software. Every major version break something, an error in an extension can make it crash entirely without any failsafe preventing it. I already lost the database twice (in what... 5 major versions), and the only reason I still use it is because I'm too lazy to use anything not in the TrueNAS apps repository.
It's not bitching if it's true. Nextcloud has really poor performance alone, it tries to do to many things at once and none of it ends up being good. It was amazing for it's time and it's idea but it simply doesn't scale, not technically, not with time. They need to redo the architecture and probably move to something better performing than PHP. I never heard anyone in any environment even considering PHP as an option in 2025.
It's fine if you use the AIO or do some specific things on baremetal like Postgres and Redis. I've used in virtually every format over the last dozen years, and you eventually learn what works.
You can find Immich at [url=https://immich.app/]https://immich.app/[/url] If you want to buy Immich merch, go to [url=https://immich.store/]https://immich.store/[/url] You can learn more about FUTO at [url=https://futo.org/]https://futo.org/[/url]
Self-hosted photo and video management solution. Easily back up, organize, and manage your photos on your own server. Immich helps you browse, search and organize your photos and videos with ease, without sacrificing your privacy.
I know we all hate AI, but we're actually angry at generative LLMs. The kind of "AI" that Immich uses is a classifier and is absolutely not the same as ChatGPT.
I commented on ONE comment...not the whole thread.
However, if I am a contrarian because I have contrary core values, beliefs, and opinions, then vive la différence! Hope you had a great thanksgiving day if you do participate. If not, hope you had a wonderful day where ever you are.
Well, I'm a contrarian then. I assure you there is no butthurt here. I mean, why would I be? For real? You don't like AI, LLM, RAG, that's fine by me and fine for you to express such. Do I get the same considerations? The ' Read The Room' comment felt like imposed group think. If I took it wrongly, then I do apologize.
I hate AI that is corporate/state spying that requires contestant constant internet access while burning fossil fuels and raising the cost of PC components.
I love the AI that can help me find photos of my son using my ancient thinkstation that was already old when I got second hand.
AI/ML have so broad definitions that they can encompass many things. The technologies arent bad, the problems are Capitalism and Autocracies.
That was my understanding, that Immich and PaperlessNGX run AI locally on your machine. That's why the server PC sounds like a fighter jet ready to take off for hours on end when a large library is first added.
Their usage is basically just the same old machine learning that's existed for ages, long before the genAI bubble started. They really should avoid the buzzword for accuracy's sake but it's far removed from all the LLM generative dogshit.
Futo’s CEO being a alt right piece of shit is a better reason.
I didn't down vote ya but, I am quite certain that if we knew all the little idiosyncrasies, personal core values, or private lives of both open source and closed source software devs, teams, sponsors, equipment manufacturers, components, et al, we'd probably never turn on our computers. I mean, I get it, you are free to make choices. I wouldn't have it any other way. However, until the dev teams start writing that into their software, I'm ok with them being an alt right piece of shit. It's kind of like, I enjoy Ted Nugent's music. It comes up in my playlist every so often. I can't stand his political stance, but I am able to separate the two without condoning his political core beliefs. Gosh, if I were to listen to only those artists that align with my core beliefs, it'd be a mighty slim playlist. ymmv
Nope. Does he not have the right to be an alt-right piece of shit? I'm not sure what country you are a citizen of, but in my country, you most certainly have the right to be an alt-right piece of shit. Oh, and yes I'm very familiar with the tolerance paradox.
Where I'm from hate speech is (rightly) a crime. Because calling for the death (of let's make an example of my trans siblings) of a people is still violence.
Ok this has been carried far too long, so I'll digress the conversation. I do wish that one day very soon, being LGBTQ+ will br as boring as being hetero.
FUTO made a $40k donation to GrapheneOS supposedly with no strings attached. They ended up being unhappy with us not making content with them and promoting them. They began supporting attacks on us and tried to destroy the GrapheneOS project. Recommend not taking money from them.
Not really that helpful, it's just more he said/she said.
Grapheneos is a pretty poor choice of example, it has its own issues, they have conflicts with many others (see France pullout), they have openly fought with Murena, e/os, fairphone, among others. Plus, grapheneos likes to throw shade on "less permissive licenses", which is really weird, considering they use an MIT license, whose loose terms is abused by many not-so-great companies.
The lead of grapheneos is just as controversial as futo, gets into public spats with others, generally difficult to work with, etc.
I say this using GrapheneOS myself.
I'm not a fan of the Curtis Yarvin association, though.
The people running these companies aren't perfect. Sometimes they aren't ideal, either. But I'd rather use Immich than Google photos and heliboard than Swiftkey.
Immich's use of AI is arguably one of the most suitable cases for the technology and it runs entirely on your own device. I get the hate for AI but this ain't it
People need to learn the different between (AI) LLM and the AI workhorses known as Machine Learning that have been doing the real heavy lifting for decades.
As we're committed not to add paywalls, this purchase will not grant you any additional features in Immich. We rely on users like you to support Immich's ongoing development.
I read that. (I literally mentioned features not being paywalled in the original comment.)
If the key doesn't unlock features, what does it unlock?
Do you get a little thank you message from the devs when you enter it in? Does it add a "Supporter" tag next to your name on the app settings?
The practice exists in both software and games of adding paid cosmetics (e.g. Discord or Deep Rock Galactic) that don't change the core featureset but allow users to pay more to support the developers, so I think it's a valid question.
Bragging rights and improved sleeping ability from the knowledge that the devs are being supported.
The serious answer is it's often easier for people in a company to buy a license key than it is for them to arrange a donation to the devs. So this is an easy way to make small donations.
I'm running it outside of a container and outside a VM... as there's no abstraction layer on top of the underlying OS. Which I guess is inside the bare metal.
"Bare metal" has traditionally meant without any os either. Your code executes directly on hardware and has direct control over everything. Like a micro controller.
Code in a container executes on the hardware in exactly my the same way as code not running in a container - with the os as an intermediary.
does immich have an option to automatically delete older, backed-up pics from devices in order to free up space and not worry about running out disk space on smartphone?
I tried to search the docs and it seems it's missing
I've not seen that option, but I use syncthing instead of the phone application to sync my photos to a specific folder on my NAS which is then an external library for Immich.
TBH, I don't want anything deleting anything automatically.
I'll often delete newer pictures of temporary stuff but keep older pictures of my frinds & family, so, that's not a feature I'd see any value in. It tends to just make me lazy and build up GBs of junk photos on my NAS (and backups...)
That sounds like a great solution to my current frustration that the autobackup feature of Immich on iOS is so opaque. It only works when the app is open and even then oftentimes you're just staring at the backup screen while seemingly nothing is happening, despite Immich's backlog of thousands of photos still needing to be uploaded.
When using the app if you select all images one of your options will be delete from device when you click on that it will say hey some of these might not be backed up and one of your option is to only delete the things that have been backed up. It's not automatic but it is a way you can kind of just Mass do it to everything
Police in Hong Kong arrested three men on suspicion of manslaughter, several local news media reported, in connection with a blaze that has killed at least 36 people and left another 279 missing in the city’s deadliest fire in years.
Hundreds of residents were evacuated as the fire which started on Wednesday afternoon, spread across seven of the eight high-rise apartment buildings in a housing complex in Tai Po district, a suburb in the New Territories. At least 29 others remained hospitalized. Bright flames and smoke shot out of windows as night fell.
Authorities said earlier that investigators would be looking into factors including whether material on the exterior walls of high-rise buildings met fire resistance standards, as the rapid spread of the fire was unusual.
Officials said the fire started on the external scaffolding of one of the buildings, a 32-storey tower, and later spread to inside the building and then to nearby buildings, likely aided by windy conditions.
“We have reason to believe that those in charge of the construction company were grossly negligent,” said Eileen Chung, a senior superintendent of police.
The three men arrested, aged 52 to 68, are the directors and an engineering consultant of the firm.
France’s government is taking action against billionaire Elon Musk ‘s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok after it generated French-language posts that questioned the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz, officials said.
Grok, built by Musk’s company xAI and integrated into his social media platform X, wrote in a widely shared post in French that gas chambers at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp were designed for “disinfection with Zyklon B against typhus” rather than for mass murder — language long associated with Holocaust denial.
The Auschwitz Memorial highlighted the exchange on X, saying that the response distorted historical fact and violated the platform’s rules.
I'm amazed it's France before Germany. But I'm also so happy that this is happening. The greatest war in history and all the horrors behind it should never be forgotten/hidden/suppressed/rewritten. Everyone commited atrocities in that war. Nobody is without stain. Document it all, and make it all widely available
"All those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability," said one campaigner in response to the new figures, "starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime.”
They were willing to sacrifice a those on October 7th to"justify" the genocide and claiming of Gaza...and probably the West Bank. You will never be able to convince me otherwise.
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the centre has rescued over 100,000 children from the frontlines and more than 1,000 from the occupied territories and Russia, through unofficial routes and brave, special operations. It estimates that one in 10 of these children has experienced sexual abuse. The victims, of all ages and sexes, include girls who have been raped and suffered forced pregnancy, “so they will give birth to future Russian soldiers,” said Alina Dmytrenko, government relations officer at the Save Ukraine Centre, an NGO that helps families escape Russian occupation, returns children abducted by Russia.
“We have these cases which are very sensitive,” she confirmed. “It is a system. It is part of Russia’s aim when it comes to children: to break Ukrainian identity and trust. To turn Ukrainians into Russians. All the children who come here are traumatised, afraid to talk, to express emotion. But with sexual abuse, all of this is much heavier.”
“Russia is specifically targeting children,” she added. “It is shocking. How can you abuse the most vulnerable?”
First of all, thanks a lot for the amazing response and interest in Journiv. We have hundreds of stars, thousands of docker pull and many many feature request (and bugs reports) on Github in just two weeks (sleepless two weeks for me 😀).
Journiv v0.1.0-beta.8 is out and in it I have added the most requested features.
Highlights:
OIDC support (now pretty stable)
In app with history. So you always have your memories safe and backed up even if you don't want to deal with docker backups
Journiv began as a deeply personal project, a way for me to capture memories, reflections, and the stories behind thousands of photos and videos of my fast-growing kids. What started as a tool for my own parenting journey has grown into something that fills a real gap in the self-hosting community.
If you’re curious, you can read the full story behind Journiv here.
I’m grateful that Journiv is now helping others preserve their memories as well.
The Journey Ahead
Journiv is in active development, with a fully functional backend, a web frontend, and mobile apps launching soon. It is self-hosted, and designed to be your companion for decades.
Journiv is being built because our memories deserve to be ours, forever.
So this Thanksgiving, give your family the gift of memories that last forever!
TL;DR: Journiv is a a beautiful, self-hosted, privacy-first journaling app with mood tracking, daily prompts, and meaningful insights. The mission is simple: your memories should always stay yours. Own them, don’t rent them.
Journiv 0.1.0-beta.4 is now live on GitHub and fully Docker-hostable. Start owning your thoughts and memories forever and keep them completely private.
The Story Behind Journiv
I got into self-hosting last year and while exploring options journaling solution, I realized there wasn’t a truly modern, self-hosted equivalent to Day One or Apple Journal. Most alternatives were either general note apps or old abandoned projects.
I wanted something focused on journaling with:
“On This Day” memories
Prompt-based journaling
A clean, minimal, distraction-free writing experience
So… I built my own: Journiv, a beautiful (at least I am trying to make it so), self-hosted, privacy-first journaling app with mood tracking, daily prompts, and meaningful insights.
Get Involved
Give Journiv a try, share your feedback and report issues. It means a lot at this stage.
Thank you using Journiv. Please report and feature request or bugs on Github. Regarding how long term: - It is very dependent on the support and sustainability the project gets from the community. So if you feel the project makes your life better and is valuable to you then definitely consider contributing and supporting it journiv.com/sponsors - Journiv, core mission is to let users completely control their data and enable freedom to do whatever they wan't with it. So open data formats and robust export is being built from day one. Journiv-viewer (coming soon journiv.com/docs/guides/journi…) allow users to access their journiv export as HTML webpages completely client side and standalone HTML pages. So even if you don't have journiv instance running years down the line you have easy access to your journals. This viewer can also generate markdown export zips with frontmatter which can then be imported to any markdown viewer or note app which support markdown without any metadata loss.
It would be great to be able to share a journal with other users for collaborative journals that all parties can view and edit. A few use cases could be family or travel journals.
Nice app. Very intuitive and does not get in the way. I don't see the integrations tab in my settings like in the immich integration vid. I am very interested in that feature.
Thank you. Please report any issues or feedback on github. This post has details on current status of immich integration reddit.com/r/immich/comments/1… It will be coming soon. Stay tuned!
Thank you. Journiv can be used by multiple user on same instance. Journiv has been built with industry grade security practices (journiv.com/docs/configuration…) and support user management (journiv.com/docs/configuration…) with role based access control. If you are using with multiple user it is recommended to use postgres as the db over sqlite: journiv.com/docs/configuration…
Journiv currently does not support shared journal where you can share your journal with other users in your instance. It is a requested feature so will be added github.com/journiv/journiv-app…
It would be great to be able to share a journal with other users for collaborative journals that all parties can view and edit. A few use cases could be family or travel journals.
NPR spent months looking into Trajector, interviewing 11 former employees and hearing from 60 veterans who hired the company. The investigation revealed a company that started with a mission to help disabled vets, but that former workers say now is intent on aggressive debt collection and maximizing profits. NPR discovered a web of corporate entities that Trajector uses to contend that it stays within the bounds of a law to protect veterans. Despite repeated written warnings from the VA that it may be breaking that law, the company continues to operate.
NPR also found that the company's moneymaker is a computerized robo-dialer system named "CallBot" that bombards a VA phone hotline meant for vets. Trajector is not accredited by the VA and the VA won't give it any information about vets' disability pay. So it uses CallBot as a side-door to sleuth that out. Trajector regularly enters social security numbers and birthdates obtained from tens of thousands of its clients into the phone hotline, which reveals the amount of each veteran's monthly disability payment. When the company detects an increase, it automatically sends a bill, sometimes for as much as $20,000, and then starts calling to collect.
Trajector is not alone. In recent years, scores of large and small outfits have sprung up promising to help vets apply for disability benefits. Critics call them "claim sharks."
I have been trying to find a PeerTube instance so I can upload music my son's band performs.
I signed up to 5 different PeerTube instances over the past two weeks. 4 of them have not accepted or rejected my application, despite all of their pages saying the accept within 24-48 hours. The fifth instance denied my application with, "read the coc and reapply". I had read it before applying, but I read it again and reapplied, it was again denied with the same reason given.
I would like to find an instance for music, preferably not hosted in the US.
I've been using makertube.net as a non-posting user for now, and they say they are open for new content creators, though it requires contacting them. I don't know if it is one of those that remain silent, but i've seen quite a bunch of creators on it.
The fifth instance denied my application with, "read the coc and reapply"
Don't know what instance that is specifically, but if their application process is anything like reddthat's lemmy application process, there's probably a bit in there about something specific you're supposed to include in the application so they can weed out bots.
I use peertube.wtf and have had no issues if thats of help. There's an artist on peertube who posts his music I'll see if I can check what instance he's on...
Last month, Firefox turned 21, marking two decades of building a web that reflects creativity, independence and trust. At TwitchCon, we celebrated by launching billionaires into space and launching a new card game, Data War.
Billionaire Blast Off started with a simple premise: send billionaires into space and have fun doing it. With Data War, we created a fun and often chaotic game where you compete to win a one-way ticket to space for a data-hungry billionaire.
An open source project the size of Lemmy needs constant work to manage the project, implement new features and fix bugs. Dessalines and Nutomic work full-time on these tasks and more. As there is no advertising or tracking, all of our work is funded through donations. Even so there is barely enough time in the day, and no time for a second job. The only available option are user donations.
To keep it viable donations need to reach a minimum of 5000€ per month, resulting in a modest salary of 2500€ per developer. If that goal is reached we can stop worrying about money, and fully focus on improving the software for the benefit of all users and instances. We especially rely on recurring donations to secure the long-term development and make Lemmy the best it can be.
I put it like this under the admin list for now, with plugin description as mouseover text. It could also go into a separate box like the subscriptions list, with plugins descriptions always visibl...
I also developed a plugin for automatic language tagging of posts/comments, it works quite well even on very short text. Will also put it on voyager.lemmy.ml soon.
There are a few reasons: - Test if the plugin system really works - As an example for other plugins - Avoid bloating Lemmy core with functionality that isnt needed by everyone - With plugins its much easier to make adjustments or new releases, and no need to wait for a new Lemmy release (and no need to fork all of Lemmy for minor adjustments)
The University of Pennsylvania (Penn) has announced a new data breach after attackers stole documents containing personal information from its Oracle E-Business Suite servers in August.
Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion Tuesday to provide 25 million American children under 10 an incentive to claim the new investment accounts for children created as part of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending legislation.
The historic gift has little precedent, with few single charitable commitments in the past 25 years exceeding $1 billion, much less multiple billions. Announced on GivingTuesday, the Dells believe it’s the largest single private commitment made to U.S. children.
Its structure is also unusual. Essentially, it builds on the “ Trump Accounts " program, where the U.S. Department of the Treasury will deposit $1,000 into investment accounts set up by Treasury for American children born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. The Dells’ gift will use the “Trump Accounts” infrastructure to give $250 to each qualified child under 10.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Leapmotor announces the opening of its Automotive Security and Safety Lab, marking a major breakthrough in intelligent safety a big step forward in making smart driving safer and more reliable for everyone.
So instead of tuning the law by adding a few lines about sex-centered homicides, they invented the new term and just stated that some sex is more important than other. It is amazing how politicians manage to invent the most stupid solution to any problem.
So you are infuriated by the name? That sounds like misogyny since there are no androcides and the law, whatever the name, would still concern only femicides.
Anyway a "gendercide" law could be great and could include also hate crimes against homosexuals, transsexuals and so on, but guess what?
Other bigots like you go completely nuts when someone mentions these words and the current proposed law for that specific type of crimes is blocked.
EDIT: you are the one who is proposing (completely out of nowhere) a "gendercide" law even though you know androcides don't exist and even though you didn't mention other genders.
Sounds all purely in bad faith, which is why I'm prone to include you in the bigots club.
Honestly any kind of gender-motivated hate murder should be punished but from my point of view isn't the biggest issue the murder part? If you're already sentencing someone for an intentional murder wouldn't they be ideally getting something resembling a maximum sentence? In which case would the specific motive really make a huge difference in punishment? I'm just trying to understand why this is a big deal when the starting point is already murder.
No, there are many cases and conditions that can change the final sentence, which can be, but not always is, the life sentence (26 years in italy or 21 with "good behavior").
I'm not an expert though so for better informations you should research it yourself.
I have briefly scanned the headline and am ready to share my immediate opinion on this significant political issue that I did zero research on. Where do I put it?
A murder charge is a minimum sentence of 21 years up to life if it had aggravating circumstances like premeditation.
So I guess this means you can be convicted of murder and femicide now and serve double life sentences. What does it accomplish practically aside from responding politically to the murder of that Giulia girl?
If you have a problem with criminalizing hate crime murders against women, you are probably part of the problem. We have a worldwide epidemic of violence against women.
Femicide doesn't get solved with more laws. It's a deep rooted issue which needs education. Proper support for abused people, really investigating and enforcing laws. Providing mental health support.
It's not like the people who are killing women right now are too worried about the existing laws. They do it out of hate and cowardice. Cultural expectations, mental health issues. And just because "they can".
But really. Support for women before they are killed. In many cases, the signs show way before and the abusers are let go with just a warning.
Wouldn't it be smarter to have a law that simply and generically adds penalties on a crime committed out of hate against a population group?
So instead of "just" femicide, it could also cover hate against e.g. members of religions, the handicapped, or, in a reverse case, maybe even cover a hate-murder on a man?
Lembot_0005
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Nighed
in reply to Lembot_0005 • • •The north sea oil fields are huge, and mostly empty now. They also have the infrastructure already built for gas extraction/injection.
Makes sense as a location for a trial in that area.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
myrmidex
in reply to Nighed • • •Nighed
in reply to myrmidex • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
myrmidex
in reply to Nighed • • •If you take them by their word, it sounds perfect.
I'm worried about Ineos' ulterior motives. It would not take a lot of change or investment to start up EOR there if any drilling equipment is still in place.
theneverfox
in reply to Nighed • • •Yeah, I'm sure it'll work this time. It definitely won't hold just long enough for attention to go elsewhere...
Oil companies are really great at keeping things in oil wells, especially at sea. Just a fantastic track record
Nighed
in reply to theneverfox • • •If it held natural gas, it should hold carbon dioxide. Especially as CO2 should react with a lot of the porus rocks and be absorbed.
That's why it's worth doing this kind of stuff though. Find out if it works now, so we know if it works when shit really goes down.
theneverfox
in reply to Nighed • • •You don't understand... We already know it doesn't work. They've been doing this for decades, they've recently started green washing this fracking technique
And in case you didn't know, there's dozens of oil wells leaking right now. Some is oil in the ocean, some natural gas, some of it is burning underground... And there's just no known way to stop it. You can't just seal them back up when you're done, the structure of the rock is damaged
And all of the aside, this doesn't math even if it worked. It takes too much energy to pull CO2 out of the air, and to even make a dent we'd have to put up CO2 condensers on a percentage of earths surface... It's a dead end tech.
A distraction from the truth... We just have to reduce emissions. It's that simple, we have to do it before the systems that keep Earth stable flip and accelerate warming
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •They aren't taking it out of the air. They are taking it out of smoke stacks. It's far easier to pull it out of highly concentrated sources like smoke stacks than to try to pull it directly out of the atmosphere.
You're describing biofuels. Vegetation "condenses" the CO2 out of the atmosphere, incorporating it into carbohydrates.
Burning biofuels, we produce H2O and CO2 in the smoke stacks. Every pound of CO2 pulled from the smoke stack is a pound removed from the atmosphere.
Any introduction of fossil fuels into the process defeats the purpose, but the underlying technology is theoretically feasible with biofuel carbon sources.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •Ok... Come on now, I know you've been propagandized, and propaganda works, but let's think this through
If you capture CO2 out of smokestacks, what have you done? You've slightly reduced emissions by going after the lowest hanging fruit possible
Are we going to do that to every power plant? Is every containment effort going to work? Does that actually fix the problem?
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •Please read what I wrote, not what you think I said.
It depends on where that carbon came from. If it came from petroleum or coal feedstocks, you've slightly reduced emissions. But, the carbon from biofuels originated from the atmosphere. Vegetation captured that CO2 directly from the atmosphere, and incorporated it into the biomass. Burning it converted the biomass into concentrated CO2 and H2O; we're capturing the concentrated CO2 out of that stream.
Again: this does not replace the need to suspend fossil fuels. But the specific process I described does, indeed, extract CO2 from the biosphere.
If we plow the vegetation under, we are burying the hydrogen and excess oxygen as well as the carbon. Burning it, we release the hydrogen (as water), but still bury the carbon.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •The biofuel thing is just further nonsense.
If you're pulling CO2 out of the air, why in the world would you turn around and burn it???
That makes zero sense. For one, biofuels require processing, which means they might even be carbon positive before you burn it, and again, the scale needed to produce it in meaningful quantities is totally impractical.
And again, you can't just pump CO2 in the well and put an acme sized plug on it. The structure of the rock is destroyed by the process, it'll just leak out. We'd need an entirely new method to store it, which was never the plan here
This whole scheme is a fever dream designed to continue burning fossil fuels while siphoning away money from actual green movements
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •Because the CO2 we pull out of the air is not in a form that we can feasibly sequester. It's padded with excessive hydrogen and oxygen into carbohydrate chains. When we burn that vegetation, we convert it to primarily to H2O, along with some CO2. Targeting the CO2 alone, we can sequester a lot more for the same energy and same volume.
That rock sequestered hydrocarbons from the biosphere for millions of years. It's not destroyed by the process. We use comparable methods for the strategic petroleum reserve and the national helium reserve.
That may be true. And yet, when used with non-fossil fuel sources, it does, indeed, serve to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than simply reducing the emission of CO2.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •I get what you're saying, it sounds very reasonable conceptually. But the problem is that this is a chain so riddled with weak links it's infeasible
You're right about biofuel... Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible. That's a far more efficient CO2 sink than pure CO2, because the oxygen component is in the atmosphere
It's insane to burn biofuels to lower atmospheric CO2.
And as far as the process being non-destructive... This technology was developed to use pressured CO2 to break smaller pockets in the rock, it's like using a pressure chamber to deflate foam. Except the rocks aren't plastic until your get a whole lot deeper, and the amount of pressure means the whole well is being pressurized beyond a level it was ever at naturally
Can a big cavity in the Earth store gasses? Sure. Can an oil well? Maybe... But so far, the answer is it leaks
As for your last point... If you instead ask if we should cram biofuels in the ground? That's a way better idea, there's something to it. It's not a solution, it doesn't scale to the levels where we can keep using fossil fuels everywhere, but it would sequester C02 very effectively. Kind of like it was before we dug it up and burned it
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •Hydrocarbons.
Chains of hydrogen and carbon.
Your comment demonstrates you're not fully understanding the chemistry of the combustion. If you remove the "water" I am talking about, you wouldn't have a hydrocarbon. You would have only carbon.
The "water" I am talking about is the "hydro" part of the "hydrocarbon". That "hydro" does not become CO2 when it burns. That "hydro" becomes H2O.
When burning lighter hydrocarbons, the majority of the exhaust in the stack is actually water vapor rather than CO2. Putting that hydrogen into the ground, unburnt, provides no additional benefit over putting just the CO2 into the ground. It merely fills up the reservoir faster, and requires even more energy for the same amount of carbon sequestration. Burning that biomass, it is (theoretically) possible for the energy recovered (after powering sequestration operations) to be a net positive.
Sequestering the unburned biofuel without recovering that energy, the operation must be a net negative.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •Yes, hydrogen, the smaller possible molecule, and carbon, which is smaller and lighter then oxygen
Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbon, aside from something like graphite.
Who cares what it becomes when you burn it? CO2 is obviously not the optimal carbon sink, even before you start considering things like long term stability
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.
Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •Do you work for them or something? Holy shit
Of course volumetric density is what matters. That and long term stability
You know what is really good at storing carbon underground forever? Fossil fuels. And if they can pull it out of the ground, they should have no problem putting it back in... It's a lot simpler
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.
Your arguments seem to assume that what you're putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.
Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture "wood mulch", or "corn stalks". While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.
Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.
What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass. You can bury solid biofuel, you can pump liquid biofuel, both are stable if you put them somewhere without much oxygen
Biomass is something different... Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land... It's that easy. It'll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There's so many better ways to do this
And CO2 is a fucking gas. Yes, it's liquid under pressure or at low enough temp... But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren't able to stay pressurized without leaking
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •You fail to comprehend the concept or need for "sequestering". What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. "Sequestration" locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.
Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.
Not at the depths and pressures we're talking about.
I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we're talking about certainly are.
Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.
theneverfox
in reply to Rivalarrival • • •At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me. What you're saying is so far beyond reason I don't even know where to start.
You are not informed enough to have an opinion on the topic. I'm sorry, you're just spewing nonsense, you need to keep your opinions to yourself
Rivalarrival
in reply to theneverfox • • •This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich "fertilizer" within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.
Your basic understanding of the concept of "sequestration" is irreparably flawed.
Kami
in reply to myrmidex • • •Because it is:
From Wikipedia.
Canonical_Warlock
in reply to Lembot_0005 • • •To remain in a liquid state CO2 needs to be kept under several hundred PSI of pressure and kept fairly cool. Even at only 40F CO2 boils at about 550 PSIG. In above ground tanks you need to worry about elevated ambient temperatures and if that CO2 tank gets to be over about 88F then that CO2 just straight up can't be liquified. Above 88F you suddenly have a tank of supercritical CO2 which gets a bit more interesting to store for various reasons.
The deep ocean it actually a fairly ideal place to store liquid CO2 because it is cold and already under an immense amount of pressure.
Deestan
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •The energy requirements for storing one ton of co2 are many many times higher than the energy gained from generating one ton of co2 (by oil, gas, coal or biofuel).
So each MWh spent "storing co2" would be ten times more efficient if used to offset oil extraction to get one MWh less out in the first place.
This is wasteful greenwashing. If it wasn't, we'd have broken physics on the level of making perpetual motion machines.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness, OfCourseNot e Atelopus-zeteki like this.
ms.lane
in reply to Deestan • • •That's true but even if we switch entirely over green energy overnight, we'll still have Steel, still have Bauxite refining for Aluminum, etc, still have to melt and reform glass and aluminum recycled containers, etc, etc.
There are many processes that we really can't just get rid of, so they will need carbon capture to ensure they're not hurting the environment.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness e Atelopus-zeteki like this.
exu
in reply to ms.lane • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Rob Bos
in reply to exu • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
ThrowawayOnLemmy
in reply to Rob Bos • • •You're far more optimistic than me.
rexbron
in reply to ms.lane • • •My brother in Christ, you need massive amounts of electricity to extract aluminum from bauxite. Steel can use electric arc furnaces, as can glass.
Carbon capture and storage is used to re-pressurize under performing oil wells.
whyNotSquirrel
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Hupf
in reply to whyNotSquirrel • • •melsaskca
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •Crashumbc
in reply to melsaskca • • •like this
Atelopus-zeteki likes this.
melsaskca
in reply to Crashumbc • • •krooklochurm
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •verdi
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •*stupid plan
FTFY
rxbudian
in reply to Mog Spawn • • •If we're storing a problem long term, maybe we can have something that slowly make the problem go away and forget that it was initially a problem.