This particular manner of death is one in a trillion. The odds that these three were going to die in a car together was quite a bit closer to parity.

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.

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.

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?

My old PC locks up every 4 to 48 hours. It would make a terrible NAS.

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.

That sure musta been something. I can only imagine.

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.

You’re literally arguing that merely BECUSE the code needs safety devices it is therefore unsafe

“Unsafe” is not the correct term. “Unsafe” implies an absolute condition. The UK system is not “unsafe”, and I have not argued that it is “unsafe”.

“Less safe” is the more accurate description. “Less safe” implies a relative condition. The UK system is “safe enough”, even though their household wiring - the wiring between the breaker and the outlet - is significantly “less safe” than household wiring around the world.

A fault between the breaker and the outlet in most of the world develops 2000-4000 watts before a breaker can be expected to trip. Japan’s 20A @ 100V is on the lower end; EU’s 16A @ 240V is on the higher end of that scale. 2000-4000 watts arcing at a faulty terminal. 2000-4000 watts that can only be dissipated by various potentially flammable building materials around the faulty device.

In the UK, it’s not 2000-4000. It’s 7200 watts. A similar fault can deliver substantially more energy to those flammable building materials, increasing the risk of fire.

North America mitigates such risks in its 7200 watt (60A @ 120V, 30A @ 240V) circuits by minimizing the number of connections; the number of places where a fault can potentially develop. We don’t allow multiple outlets: these circuits must be dedicated to a single, special-purpose outlet only. Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world have similar requirements for such circuits. The UK goes ahead and daisychains their 7200W circuits throughout the home.

By that metric, the household wiring is, indeed, “less safe” than competing circuits around the world. By that metric, UK household circuits are, indeed, substandard, even before they eschew simple straightforward branch topology for rings, which introduce a variety of complex failure modes that can easily overload household wiring.

The “less safe” condition of UK wiring necessitates additional protections at and after the outlet. The safety measures employed in the rest of the world are inadequate to mitigate the dangers posed by the UK’s 7200 watt household circuits.

The code HAS those fuses, and with those fuses it is safe. Safer than a central breaker system in fact. You can’t just keep racking caveats changes and asterisks onto the UK electrical code and then laughing at how unsafe is.

Again, the topic of discussion is “Why does the UK need these plugs, when the rest of the world doesn’t?”

To understand that topic, we do, actually, need to consider the dangers of the UK using the kind of plugs used in the rest of the world.

America has UNFUSED multi cords rated for 7A.

Indeed, we do. We have detachable appliance power cords built to be plugged into a 15/20A circuit, that connect to devices labeled to 7A, so the cord is similarly labeled. But, that cord is built with at least 18AWG wire, which is normally rated to carry 16A, not 7A. And it doesn’t have our normal NEMA 5-15 socket on the downstream end, so it cannot be used as an “extension” cord.

There’s literally nothing stopping you in America from plugging a 7amp rated extension cord, into a 20A outlet, plugging in two space heater on max and a third one on low, and pull 18-19 amps through a cord rated for 7, and no fuse or breaker is going to stop you from doing that.

Other than the fact that we don’t actually have extension cords labeled (or rated) to carry 7A at all. Or that three 1500W space heaters will draw 37.5A @ 120V, which will easily trip our 15/20A breakers.

We could physically plug them into an extension cord labeled 10A, the lowest rating I’ve ever seen. But that cord will built with at least 16AWG wire, which is rated to carry 22A in chassis wiring. (It will also be very short.)

The key flaw in your argument is your failure to understand that the world does, indeed, protect its devices with household breakers. We do, indeed, build our devices to carry the full current that our household wiring could provide at an outlet, even where the device itself is intended to draw only a tiny fraction of that current. This is one of the most basic standards in use by UL, CSA, CE, and every other electrical certification body on the planet.

I know you understand the reason behind this standard. What I don’t know is why you think the rest of the world doesn’t understand it, and hasn’t codified it.

And device safety is MORE THAN adequately provided by fused plugs.

Of course it is. That’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is “Why does the UK use overengineered plugs not needed in the rest of the world?”

And the answer is because their household circuits are radically substandard relative to those in use in the rest of the world. Without those special plugs, UK circuits would be extraordinarily dangerous.

THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF A CIRCUIT HAS ZERO, NADA, NULL INFLUENCE ON THAT CIRCUITS ELECTRIC SHOCK POTENTIAL OR SEVERERTY AND IS NOT RELEVANT WHATSOEVER FOR HUMAN SAFETY.

People die in fires.

And device safety is MORE THAN adequately provided by fused plugs.

Not the topic of discussion. Again, the topic is “Why does the UK use overengineered plugs not needed in the rest of the world?” To understand that, we consider the hypothetical use of non-fused plugs on UK circuits, compared to non-fused plugs on global circuits. When we consider that hypothetical, we realize the exceptional danger posed by that condition, and we identify the need for those plugs.

and are yet completely incapable of providing even a singular valid argument as to it being less safe.

Because that is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is “Why does the UK use overengineered plugs not needed in the rest of the world?” The danger is not the plugs. The danger is the household circuitry. The plugs are the safety device grafted on to restore the degree of safety the rest of the world enjoys without those special plugs. Of course the plugs are safe. The danger arises when we hypothetically apply the world’s non-fused-plug standard to UK household circuits, in order to understand the necessity of those plugs.

You just irrationally hate the UK network for some fucking reason

Projection.

I happen to have (several) 30A 240V circuits in my house and shop. The one I was using tonight has an arc welder plugged into it. Under the applicable electric code in the US, this circuit has to be dedicated. It can serve only one outlet. If I want another 30A outlet, I have to wire a completely separate, dedicated circuit for that outlet. I can only install such outlets in certain places within my home and shop.

That is the standard here in North America. The standard for EU, Japan, and the rest of the world is comparable. North America (And possibly Japan?) has an additional feature in that our 240V circuits are split-phase: They expose the user to a maximum 120V fault to ground. To experience a 240V fault, you have to be ungrounded and simultaneously contact not just one but two opposing hot phases.

The UK daisy chains single-phase, 240V to ground, 30A outlets throughout their homes. They put circuits suitable for arc welding in their bathrooms. They use circuits suitable for arc welding for their alarm clocks and hair dryers.

The UK requirements on 30A circuits and outlets are far less restrictive than the requirements on 30A circuits and outlets in the rest of the world. The UK uses substandard household circuits, necessitating their over-engineered plug.

The UK could have deprecated their 30A circuits in favor of the 16A circuits in use in Europe. They elected to keep their substandard, arc-welder-ready outlets and over-engineer a plug instead.

The higher voltage has nothing whatsoever to do with ring circuits. The UK runs on the same 220-240V AC as all of mainland Europe. And Africa. And most of mainland Asia. And South America. And Oceania. And most of the middle east. So not quite “higher than any other country”

240V @ 30A is the highest on the planet. You consistently ignored current rating, despite recognizing that without the special, overengineered fused plugs, appliances would be exposed to them. Your inclusion of this is dishonest.

~~Also those two claims are diametrically opposed to each other. Unless UK people use over twice the amount of electricity than Americans, the higher voltage will lead to LOWER total current.~

The claim you’re rebutting is not the claim that was made. The claim that was made was that each UK circuit has higher current than a comparable North American circuit. Which is true. A UK household circuit is at 30A, while Canadian/US/Mexican is at 15/20A. American and UK homes use roughly the same amount of total power, but the American home typically distributes that power with roughly 4 times as many, lower-current circuits.

And the current a conductor can pass has nothing whatsoever to do with it’s safety.

Both of us have rebutted that several times already, in recognizing that a low-current wire is a fire hazard when connected to a high-current household circuit. You make that argument yourself, below.

The Japanese plugs are basically the same as American. You can literally get an electric shock if you hold them wrong whilst unplugging. There’s exposed live contacts from when you start unplugging until the prongs break their connection to the outlet.

Conceded. The insulated prongs on the UK sockets are not “overengineering”. Such prongs are used on Europlugs as well. That leaves the extremely large size of the contacts, necessitating the shutters.

Basically everything you said is demonstrably false. I’ve rarely seen someone be this confident and this incorrect about something.

Everything? Really? My “rebuttal” is to ignore this ad hom.

That is utterly irrelevant. Circuit breakers and fuses are designed for the exclusive and sole purpose of protecting the circuit from being overloaded. A 100 amp circuit with a 100 Amp fuse is exactly as safe as a 20 amp circuit with a 20 amp fuse or a 5 amp circuit with a 5 amp fuse. If the voltage is above ~100-200V, all 3 of these are hundreds of times the amount of current it would take to deliver a fatal electric shock, and none of those fuses would trip from you getting shocked.

The rest of the world safely uses unfused plugs. Every argument you make that requires fuses supports my contention.

And a dead short on a 240V network will literally trip everything. UK ring circuits are fused at 30 Amps. A dead short at 240V with only the internal resistance of copper wiring would pull current in the neighborhood of 1000 amps. 1000, somewhat famously, being slightly larger than 30, making this another lie there.

You’re assuming the internal resistance of a wire of sufficient gauge. An undersized wire - such as a power cord intended to be used on a 16A EU appliance - may not be capable of drawing 30A, let alone 1000, without catching fire. It may only draw 28A while it is glowing red hot. That same unfused power cable is perfectly acceptable and perfectly safe on a 16A EU circuit, but is unsafe on a UK household circuit without that special UK plug.

And even if it weren’t a lie, how on earth does the location of the fuse make a difference in safety here ? If it’s in the wall or in the plug, as long as it’s there and does it’s job both would be equally safe.

You’re ignoring the original point and arguing something tangential and irrelevant. The rest of the world safely uses unfused plugs. Which means that their power cables are simpler in design and construction, but necessitates that their power cable must be able to survive the full rated household current. The UK does not use this “unfused plug” design philosophy. The reason they don’t use it is because it would necessitate that their power cables be capable of surviving 30A faults, rather than the 16A in the EU.

The UK does not restrict their household supply circuits to 16A. They allow their household circuits to carry 30A. That standardization decision necessitates the fused plug that the rest of the world simply doesn’t need.

The function provided by those shutters is achieved in the Japanese wiring by lower voltage, narrow holes in receptacles (allowable because they don’t need as large a contact to safely carry the lower rated current) and whole-house AFCI/GFCI.

No it isn’t. 110V is still dangerous to a child, and if you think otherwise I hope to god you aren’t, or ever become a parent. Also, as I stated, your plugs literally allow for an electric shock to happen whilst unplugging them because they’re so terrible. As for whole house GFCI, that is by necessity included in a ring circuit that wants GFCI on any outlet at all.

Again, conceded: The sleeved contacts are not part of the “overengineering” of the plug. The EU plug uses a similar design. American and Japanese plugs are deficient in this aspect.

Also you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship of current and voltage. For a given electrical appliance, with a given wattage, a lower voltage means it needs to draw more current, not less. That’s why the US Japan need to have 20A household breakers, whereas in the EU 16A branches are more than enough, whilst still providing a higher load handling capability than a 20A Japanese fuse. A 1000 Watt microwave plugged into a Japanese socket will draw over twice as much current as a 1000 Watt microwave plugged into an EU or UK socket (which also means it produces 4 times the amount of electrical waste energy as heat, though that is generally negligible for short household cable runs either way. Can make a difference on the scale of a country though).

Not an accurate observation of my understanding at all, and not particularly relevant to the discussion. The topic of discussion is the relationship of plugs to household wiring.

For a given voltage, the outcome of recieving a shock on a 20A fused circuit is literally indistinguishable and fully identical to that of receiving a shock on a 100A fused circuit. Identical. Literally.

Conceded, with the caveat that the RCD/AFCI/GFCI device for the 20A circuit will be more sensitive and allow lower current to pass than the equivalent RCD/AFCI/GFCI device on the 100A circuit.

No it isn’t. I literally just told you you can buy 15A rated extension cords in Japan in the comment you’re replying to. 15, is in fact less than 20, just fyi.

The 15A extension cord in Japan is designed to be plugged into a Japanese outlet. This is the same bullshit historical and technical issue that we have in our NEC code, where identical components often have different nameplate ratings. That 15A extension cord is specifically designed for use on circuits protected by 20A breakers.

Wrong. Again. The current limit imposed by the internal resistance of your body at voltages in the range of 100-200 is a few hundred milliamps. Maybe an amp or two if you stick electrodes inside yourself, and anything higher than 100 mA going through your heart is already lethal anyway. You’re gonna be dead 200 times over waiting for your 20A fuse to save you. The power that will pass through your body depends exclusively and solely on the voltage. The capacity and fusing of the circuit is utterly irrelevant, unless it’s fused at like 40 MILLI amps.

Conceded, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

ANY cable being driven above it’s rated load is a fire hazard. There are healthy margins in those ratings, so going slightly over is likely not going to have any affect, but those margins are for good reason (namely people like you thinking it’s fine to plug a 15A cable into a 20A circuit without external fusing or current limiting), and deliberately overloading any part of an electric circuit is ALWAYS dangerous and stupid.

I addressed this with my diatribe against the NEC’s position on 15A vs 20A components. The 15A extension cord is specifically designed for use in a circuit protected by a 20A breaker. It’s an asinine provision, but it is there.

And what about 7A cables you can get in japan ? you can explicitly get 0.75mm² cables, which are only rated to 7Amps. Just as confident of blasting 20A through those ? Almost 9 times the amount of waste heat being generated in the core than at it’s max rated load.

I suspect that those cables actually do have a fuse in them, much like the fused plugs used on North American Christmas decorations.

~~Your device could slowly be melting itself into a pile of burning plastic, as long as it’s drawing less than 16 Amps to do so, the breakers will not trip. As I’ve pointed outñ

Yes, exactly. Which is why the unfused portions of that device have to be designed to handle at least 16A.

And in fact, the fused plugs actually make it way MORE likely for something to trip on a device side fault in the UK, because the current only has to be like 3Amps to kill the fuse. In every other place of the world, current needs to be at least 16A before anything trips.

Agreed. I’ve repeatedly made that exact argument in support of my point.

I address that point, quite literally, in a later a paraph where I write

Maybe an amp or two if you stick electrodes inside yourself

So what happened here ? Did you not read my comment ? Did you not understand it ? Or did you read it understand, and then continue to pretend like I haven’t already explicitly addressed this anyway ?

I confess, I didn’t read it. As It wasn’t and isn’t particularly relevant to the core issue, I’m happy to concede the point.

In a our real world overhere, of fucking course a ring circuit can pass enough current to trip it’s breaker, and it’s fucking laughable to claim they can’t.

Appliance wiring, not household wiring. I clearly specified that. You’re reading what you want to read, and not what I actually wrote. You’re laughing at yourself, not at what I claimed.

Remember: most of the world safely uses unfused plugs on their appliance power cords. Their 16A household breaker is the only current limiter available to protect those unfused power cables. Those normal sized, unfused cables would be drastically undersized if plugged into a less-restrictive, 30A outlet.

Europe uses 16A household circuits. UK uses 30A. It would be unsafe to use a European appliance on a UK circuit with an unfused plug.