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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.

That could have been the mandate. They could have mandated that be the only allowable screen. It shows what’s behind you, and that’s it. No distractions tolerated. No pop-up logos or other advertising. No driving controls on that screen. Touch screen disabled while in motion, with all essential functions actuated by physical controls.

But they didn’t. They mandated a rearview and monitor, but didn’t restrict its use. And that failure has probably caused more injuries and deaths than it has prevented.

Unless they only permitted that screen to show a rear view. They could have prohibited any other use, or prohibited non-tactile controls that required ocular attention while driving. They could have required that touchscreen controls be disabled while driving. But they didn’t.

They mandated the distracting screen, and probably killed more people than they saved.

They also put a distracting video monitor in front of the driver 100% of the time, not just the 0.2% while backing. Manufacturers have moved a lot of controls to that screen, rather than leaving them on tactile buttons and switches that could be operated without taking eyes off the road.

How many collisions have been caused by distractions from the these screens?

With a backup camera comes a video screen necessarily in view of the driver, contributing to distracted driving at all times the vehicle is not in reverse. How many kids have been killed because of such distractions?

The people who hate it are those who think themselves better than their peers. They think they deserve more than their peers, and that socialism transfers their superior effort to the benefit of their inferiors.

They see socialism not as everyone helping everyone, but as they, the successful being forced to support them, the lazy.

Technically, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder. it’s listed in the DSM-V. Pedophiles could be considered mentally ill.

Hebophilia and ephebophilia aren’t illnesses. They are crimes.

Yes. The relevant metric:

99.55% of posts are on a single instance. That is not “federated” in any meaningful sense.