this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
230 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
77870 readers
4395 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As per Energy Dome:
these people are straight-up lying, how can CO2 be "eco-friendly" when all its industrial extraction processes involve fossil fuels as a source? notice how they didn't mention who their gas supplier is? that's because it would out them and their lies.
it's impossible to buy gas turbines without ultimately funding the fossil fuel giants. also let's not ignore the environmental catastrophe that would happen if these were deployed en masse and a corruption scandal like the Beirut port explosion happened.
it's also not lost on me that this technology is being deployed in poor, economically exploited areas like Sardinia and Xinjiang. there's a reason why they're not building bubbles in the middle of Rome or Beijing, because the people would revolt at this eyesore of a ticking time bomb. nobody would give a fuck if thousands of Uyhurs died in a mass asphyxiation event because people are already ignoring the genocide they're going through.
it's concerning whenever Google gets excited about a new energy solution because we all know how they treat the environment around their data centers. if deployed, they'd use the hot breath bubbles to excuse their seemingly infinite energy consumption increase in order to keep the AI bubble from popping. this is carbon credits all over again, they'll use the CO2 to deploy more methane gas turbines because these would "cancel them out".
edit: removed inaccurate claim about Energy Dome in Xinjiang, added context
What's your plan that doesn't utilize the existing fossil fuel industry at all to go cold turkey on oil and full throttle on renewable?
subsidize energy storage solutions that aren't as economically profitable as fossil fuels. like thermal batteries, pumped hydro, etc.
most people don't need that much energy during the night, so that is a red herring from the energy companies. the reason why we need this much storage in the first place is because of the infinite growth mindset instead of making industrialists pay for their own shit when they're consuming energy in a race to the bottom. if we banned all the slop products from being made, energy demand would go down exponentially.
in a worst case scenario, we could 100% only rely on renewables and deal with the fact that we'll have power outages during sleeping hours. that pill would be much easier to swallow if everyone is sharing the same burden, like during the lockdowns. and for the disabled people that need electricity to stay alive, give them refurbished EV batteries for free, there's already more of them on the market than we could use in a lifetime. same thing for hospitals and essential institutions
OK, so you don't have fossil-fuel-free solutions, either, and you don't have a reasonable plan to handle night time energy needs. You specifically said that utilizing fossil fuels at all was an issue, including for production of renewable, with the claim about not being able to source a turbine without fossil fuel use. It sounds like you don't understand that "night" happens during normal human waking hours, that there are actual activities and demand for energy specifically at night, and that there is no direct path to a fossil-fuel-free energy solution. I have no idea how subsidizing alternates erases fossil fuels for your idea.
Its the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere and I have 8.5 hours of daylight today. That's about 4 hours of decent solar production without clouds, since the sun is so low. I guess I'll just try sleeping, without electric heat (since CNG is a fossil and solar is dormant), for 14 hours tonight from dusk to dawn (5pm-7am). Wait, solar panels are still using fossil fuels for production, so those are out. Is a wood stove OK? It's renewable, but it's a major CO2 burden, much worse than CNG. Can't mine lithium or nuclear material with the existing industry, all runs on petroleum. I'm not sure if life is worth living, as every waking hour has been spent at work, using the small time frame to try to support myself financially.
This also means no activity can occur at night. No manufacturing? Triple the facility sizes to allow the "night time" morning shift and the "night time" late night shift to operate with the daytime shift. Can't go anywhere, can't entertain myself, can't eat, can't enjoy anything other than lying in the dark, waiting for the sun to come back. That's weird, putting all the overnight demand in the daytime is causing brownouts because we couldn't triple our energy production. But hey, the burden is being shared and we're all miserable for 5 straight months. But the summer will be rad with only demanding 8 hours of dormancy.
Look at the project. It's not a continuous production of CO2. It says this one contains 2,000 tonnes of CO2 and produces 200MWh/day. A CNG power plant is somewhere in the range of 0.5kg CO2/kWh. That's 10,000kg CO2 from CNG for 20MWh, or 10 tonnes. In just 200 days, a CNG plant of the same capacity will produce as much CO2 as this entire facility contains.
Bashing innovative projects like this for being anything less than a time machine to go pure nuclear actively hurts progress. Is that your goal? To maintain the status quo?