17 ms·
Good analysis, but fails to take into account the storage costs of whatever CO2 is sequestered (or the potential to offset those costs by selling the CO2 to wha
by tathougies 7y ago
Good analysis, but fails to take into account the storage costs of whatever CO2 is sequestered (or the potential to offset those costs by selling the CO2 to whatever industry uses them).
- henryfjordan 7y agoThe article does take storage cost into account (although it does kinda waive it away): > If this impression is correct then the cost of capturing CO2 is likely to either dominate or in worst case be comparable to the cost of storage and utilization. Still, a more detailed analysis would be careful about this costing
- mmanfrin 7y ago> storage costs of whatever CO2 is sequestered CO2 is not spent uranium.
- pjc50 7y agoNo, but you do have to keep it somewhere where it won't leak back into the atmosphere again any time soon. Which means deep underground.