Not sure if gasoline or liq nat gas is more carbon dense though.
Taking gasoline as pure octane, C8H18, i.e. ignoring all the additives that are generally added, and nat gas as pure methane, CH4, then:
By weight (1 kg):
gasoline contains ~0.84 kg of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.75 kg of carbon
By volume (1 L):
gasoline contains ~0.64 kg/L of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.35 kg/L of carbon
You are already paying your seller's agent commission, they are supposed to be working for YOU, in what world again under the general case is hiding your listing from potential buyers even if only for a short time good for you?
When you don't want 'those sorts' of people buying your house?
The training is not legal. They're using copyright materials for commercial purposes and may potentially be able to reproduce it for everyone who uses it even if it's in bits and pieces.
Oh come on now - the outcome of the training is literally transformative (c.f. GPT, i.e. generative pretrained transformer), hence not a copyright violation. </s>
(Ok, so this ^ was sarcasm. If any lawyer uses this as a defence in court I apologise for potentially giving them the idea. On the plus side, perhaps I could then sue them for copyright violation??)
Labe explains that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tends to peak in April each year as decaying plants release greenhouse gases after winter. Some of that CO2 gets reabsorbed by plants as they grow during the warmer months.
If that were true there'd be two peaks each year. Earth has northen (sic) and southern hemispheres, ya know: when it's winter in the north it's summer in the south and vice-versa.
Except that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much (~2.1:1) land area as the southern hemisphere, meaning rather more plants.
If you ever look at a 'zoomed in' graph of atmospheric CO2 levels the curve is distinctly saw-toothed, as levels rise and fall over the course of a year.
55 percent of china's energy comes from burning coal
I'll just leave this here, lest some other ignoramus takes your blather too seriously.
In fact, have a snippet, for those unable / unwilling to follow links: "The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China’s emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth. The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."
Now, whilst I have seen breathless headlines suggesting that the US's total emissions are rising once more, allegedly as a result of Donnie's trumpie tantrums against wind and solar, I think I'd rather wait for the official historical figures (assuming they can still be collected) before engaging in too much finger pointing. Having said that however, and to engage in a little whataboutism, the most recent data I have easy access to shows that, despite being the global manufacturing centre of the world, China's CO2 emissions were 8.66 tonnes / capita in 2024, compared with 14.20 tonnes / capita in the US.
One is minded to point out the adages to "remove the plank from one's own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from the eye of another" and to "set one's own house in order, before it's too late"...
CNBC Interview with Ryan Cohen this morning.
Either he did this interview after an all-night Hunter Biden-esque binge of crack and hookers or he is a complete moron. Entirely incapable of understanding or answering obvious and basic questions. Watch and make your own judgement.
Yeah, that was a train wreck. Dude looks out of his tree...
That said, what puzzles me most about that interview was the financial breakdown by the host (to paraphrase): "Your market cap is ~$11 billion, you've got ~$9 billion on your balance sheet
Um, what?
You can't just add those numbers together to get the net value of the company (or the sum value of its assets, including goodwill, expected future earnings, etc.). They represent the same damn thing!
If the (net) assets a company holds are valued at, or worth, more than its market capitalisation it's normally a good time to buy shares. If the converse is true, then the market is, presumably, considering intangibles and expected future performance in arriving at the share price. What no-one on Earth does (or at least I thought so, up 'til now) is add-up both sides of the balance sheet and say that that represents the true value of the company. That's just insane!
Disposable income already considers this, it's an apples to apples comparison.
Are you sure? I mean, really sure?
After all, the link you provided states "Disposable income is the amount of money a household has available for spending and saving after income taxes have been deducted" then goes on to qualify this with "This figure will be the most significant dollar amount because government taxes at the federal and state level are not included in the figure."
You'll note that missing from either of these quotes (or any other rider on that page) is any reference to: adjustments for state funded healthcare; parental leave allowance, or maternity or paternity pay; social security benefits / in work benefits; and so on.
So, I wonder, what is it, in toto, that you think 'Disposable income' covers exactly?
So, no actual citation to back up your rather far-fetched claim then, just more misinformation...
Immigrants have a right to private family and life, and that means infinite right to immigrate and not be removed no matter how much of a threat to national security they are.
No, it doesn't!
I mean, if I were to quote from the actual guidance issued by the court a reasonable reader might agree that it says "Article 8 cannot be construed as conferring the right to live in a particular location"
What the guide does say is that "... in immigration matters, where there is an arguable claim that expulsion threatens to interfere with the alien’s right to respect for his or her private and family life, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention requires that States must make available to the individual concerned the effective possibility of challenging the deportation or refusal of residence order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality [...]. Moreover, a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must not be deprived of all guarantees against arbitrariness. On the contrary, he or she must be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and censure a possible abuse by the authorities. Before that review body the person concerned must have the benefit of adversarial proceedings in order to present his or her point of view and refute the arguments of the authorities."
In other words, in line with section 2 of article 8 ("There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime"), the refusal to allow an individual in / the deportation of an individual must be contestable and in accordance with the law - not that there is no legal right for that refusal or deportation.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, you (seemingly) being anti-immigration doesn't make the FUD you spout correct.
This goes hand in hand with recent EU announcement that IS fighters cannot have their refugee status rejected based on them being members of that terrorist organization.
Citation required!
The current rules state (among other things) that "When applicants are considered a danger to national security or public order" asylum claims will be refused, and the applicant deported. One might imagine that a member of a terrorist organisation with a particular bugbear about western, secular, liberal democracies would fall into this category...
So... evidence?
I'm pretty sure an inattentive kid routinely impacts stationary objects at around 6 MPH.
Which isn't the same as a (relatively) stationary kid being hit by a 4000 lb object moving at 6 MPH. The impact, the transfer of momentum, will (usually) be greater.
It'll leave bruises and may hurt for a little while, but it's certainly not a dangerous speed to get hit at unless you're SUPER unlucky and end up under a wheel or something.
But, yeah, agreed.
This story serves as a good advert for Waymo, imo.
Dear slashdot headline writers: Accessing systems using stolen credentials is not hacking!
That ship has sailed my friend...
Just one of many sites providing a 'counterpoint' definition.
Remember, intelligent minds adapt - living in the last millennium might not be the flex you think it is...
I guarantee you the weed habit is more expensive than the alcohol habit.
Start with £25:
spend it on alcohol in a pub, it'll last less than an evening...
spend it on alcohol from the supermarket, it'll last maybe a week...
spend it on weed, it'll last at least a week...
(ofc, depending on your location, ymmv)
I've had some inside access to this tech in recent past. The main problem is efficiency. It's horrendous. You lose tremendous amounts of energy doing this, and you need quite a bit of energy to maintain the compressed state. We're nowhere near mainline chemical batteries in terms of efficiency numbers, and whatever numbers they're claiming on their website are likely specifically negating some critical losses. I've seen efficiency numbers as low as 20-25%, through they can really struggle to push into upper 30s for long term storage, and can probably get above 50 for very short term (i.e. minimal compressed state maintenance costs). Still nowhere near the required efficiency numbers to competitive with chemical batteries of current gen. These people claim 75%. Odd.
Well, they're the ones who have been running a pilot plant. Presumably their efficiency figures come from their real world electrical power requirements / production. However, I must confess I share your scepticism. If we look at each component of the plant individually alongside their typical efficiencies (Compressor: 70% - 90%; Turbine: 40% - 95%; Electric Motor: 75% - 95%; Electrical Generator: 85% - 98%; Thermal Insulation: 80% - 98%) and factor in frictional / pressure losses in the pipe network (tbf will be small, but let's for now assume 5% losses, so 95% 'efficient') the overall efficiency will be a multiple of all these factors. This gives us, for the 'round trip':
Best Case: ~74%. Ok, this is essentially what they're claiming. So, their claims are feasible, assuming that they've installed 'best in class' everything, and that the motor / generator is operating in its optimum range.
Worst Case: ~14%. Slightly below your bottom figure, but given the terrible bottom-end efficiency for some types of turbines* (and I'm not sure, if I'm being honest, that these numbers apply in this scenario) that's not too surprising.
* Full disclosure. It's not entirely clear to me why the Betz limit wouldn't apply in this situation, which would limit the turbine efficiency to ~59%. I realise that the work is actually being done by the phase change, rather than simply the velocity, of the working fluid, but thermodynamics / fluid mechanics still presents conceptual challenges to me...
And it's completely unsuitable to any kind of "long term storage". This is very much a potential energy capacitor, and maintaining compressed state requires constant energy burn (which is one of the parts of it having awful energy efficiency).
Um, what? You've heard of valves right? Or taps? Picture, if you will, a CO2 fire extinguisher. Is there a constant energy burn required to maintain pressure within it? No! Just (mandated) yearly checks to see if the internal pressure is within spec. For a system that's designed to cycle over an 8 - 24 hour period this is very much a non-issue.
Finally there's just basic physics. From memory, CO2 goes supercritical at just over 30C (liquid and gas phase become effectively indistinguishable no matter the pressure you put it under). Last 10 degrees or so before that, pressure needed to maintain it it liquid form goes from something like 50 bar to around 80 bar if memory serves me right.
Not sure what your point is here. Industrial processes regularly use supercritical CO2. Why is this (^) relevant in this instance?
These people claim no cryogenics, which is 100% impossible claim.
Cryogenics is usually defined as utilising temperatures below ~120 K (-153 C or -238 F). At 1 atm CO2 solidifies at -78.5 C. Their claims in this regard are solid, unlike the CO2 they're using...
When you pressurize the gas, it heats up. A lot. You will need an incredibly powerful cooling system to keep it under that supercritical temp unless your "charging" is hilariously slow. Also this will suck up power.
Indeed, a lot of thermal mass will be required for the heating and cooling. Their illustration shows them using water, which has a SHC ~ 5 times that of CO2, and a larger single phase thermal range. Factor in phase changes and, once more, water's latent heat of vaporisation is much larger (~ 7 times) than that of CO2. In other words, you'd need, at most, one fifth the mass of water, if, and it's a big if, the temperature variance of both substances is the same. But it's not. The temperature range of the CO2 isn't going to vary that much, most of the energy will come from / be used in it changing phase (~348 KJ/kg). Factor in water's SHC (~4.2 KJ/kg/K), and limiting the acceptable temperature range of the water to, let's say 50 K you'd need (as an absolute minimum estimate) ~1/500th** the mass of water to 'buffer' the (temperature and) phase changes. 2000 tonnes of CO2 -> 4 tonnes of water -> 4 m^3 of water -> a 6' x 6' x 3' water tank.
How ever will they manage to build a system with such onerous requirements?***
** Again, full disclosure. Even I am doubting this figure. It seems ridiculously low, so my sarcasm above might not be warranted. You're definitely going to want to check my maths before relying on anything I've written above.
*** Yeah, I've obviously brushed past issues regarding (de)pressurisation temperature changes, and how the system actually manages the flux, but these are not new or unsolved problems. Heat exchangers are a thing. More water than my back of a fag packet calculation suggests will be required. Parent is also correct that there will be (potentially significant) pumping losses involved in such a system, which have not been factored into the overall efficiency calculated at the start.
But there's a lot of evidence pointing at it being just another ESG green credits mill, and very little evidence of it having such a breakthrough.
It's a compressed gas battery. They are not new. It's not a 'breakthrough', it's a logical extension of well understood physics and engineering, with the only novelty being the fact that it's utilising CO2 as the working fluid and that the system might be cheaper than Li or Na batteries.
Hyperbole will be the death of us!
What if I am ostracized from real life society, and this is the last place I can try to make the case that you're all being unfair and we should legalize suicide? Why do you ban talk of suicide?
You're picking the wrong fight, with the wrong person here.
My personal belief system essentially starts with the principle - well, it's more a corollary of the first principle - that everyone has the right to choose how / when to end their life. I find the notion that suicide should be illegal is ludicrous, not to mention non-sensical - it's a little hard to prosecute someone who's dead! Likewise, I'm definitely not advocating banning conversations about suicide. It would be hard to talk someone out of it if the entire subject were taboo; it would be (and, alas, currently is) impossible to share 'best-practice' if we can't talk about it - which leads people to do really inconsiderate things like jump in front of moving vehicles, with no thought for the feelings of others or the effects it might have on them, e.g. the driver of said vehicle, who didn't choose to get involved.
What I was trying to do, poorly it seems, was point out that you weren't just talking about suicide, you were telling someone that their mere presence on this earth was enough to make you want to kill yourself. That's not a discussion, that's just an insult!
Also, how do you know I haven't extensively sought professional help, but it didn't help because the therapists didn't like me either, and had more important patients to focus on?
I have no insight into your life whatsoever. I have no idea what you have or haven't tried. I would just say though that, from a professional point of view, no one patient is 'more important' than another, and, while that may be your perception of the situation, that's unlikely to be the reality. Depression makes us think strange things, things that are, on reflection from a 'happier' place, simply not true. As someone who has been there all I can suggest is that you trust me on this.
What is your solution to the problem of me?
I don't see you as a problem. I see some of your behaviours as problematic. There's a world of difference!
Why isn't legal suicide the most cost-effective and efficient solution?
Life isn't about cost and / or efficiency. Neither should death be!
That said, when I choose to go: fuck the legality! And, to a degree, I have considered both the cost, efficiency, and effectiveness of my chosen method. However, I've also considered the effect my death, and the manner and nature of it, would have on others (the only thing that stopped my taking a long drop ~25 years ago), as well as any 'discomfort' or pain that I might experience during the process.
Finally, as it happens, I have day-dreamed about starting a chain of "Departure Clinics": what rules / conditions for use I would want to impose; what kind of atmosphere I'd want to foster; what method they would use; and so on. Cost-effective - debateable, because there's a lot of factors to consider, and a lot of unknowns. Efficient - absolutely. But, and I think this is a key question, this is a solution to what, exactly? It's not a solution for depression; it's not a solution for society's ills; it's not a solution for a bad break-up; it's not a solution for unpopular people.
So, what are we trying to solve here?
If I like to respond to every post I disagree with, why is that so offensive to mods
Are you sure that it's the fact you respond as opposed to the content of your responses. I mean, seriously, let's take just one example from above: "Why not legalize suicide, since living around people like you makes me not want to live?"
What possesses you to think that people 'want' to be treated / spoken to like that, or that people will tolerate being treated / spoken to like that? If anyone spoke to people like this in real life they would quickly be ostracised. Why would you think that an online community should be different?
... that I get banned and feel suicidally depressed as a result, not because of the free expression of other posters, but because mods prevent me from responding as I see fit?
I'd suggest you start by accepting responsibility for your words and actions, rather than blaming others. And, honestly, you should probably seek professional help for your (current) mental health crisis.
This is not really the place to get it...
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
