4 ms·

Honest and good faith question here: assuming all electricity on the grid was nuclear, how much CO2 emission would remain? You can't just swap massive cargo shi

Honest and good faith question here: assuming all electricity on the grid was nuclear, how much CO2 emission would remain? You can't just swap massive cargo ships to nuclear overnight. Would "just" making the power grid green be enough?

whatisthiseven 6y ago
No, power generation is about a quarter: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Transportation could push that total to 50% if all ICE cars were converted or destroyed and only electric vehicles were used (ignoring ships and trains). "Industry" includes CO2 waste byproducts which are much harder to reduce as many processes may struggle to eliminate that byproduct. Instead capture and sequestration would be needed. This is another 25% The rest are small, but since we need virtually all CO2 emissions to be zero, we are left with nearly another 25% that isn't tied to electric production and is difficult to replace. So, 50% of all CO2 isn't power generation related.
nip180 6y ago
In the US we generate on average 0.99lb of CO2 per kWh. The total output is 1.87b tons of CO2. Total CO2 emissions in the US were about 5.17b tons. So about 1/3 of emissions. It’s worth doing, considering we can reasonably execute this in a decade. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
cameldrv 6y ago
It’s possible to synthesize hydrocarbon and other liquid fuels using CO2 from the air, or hydrogen which has no carbon in it. If you have a closed loop with your carbon, you eliminate the problem (still have particulates, NO etc, but that’s separate)
antisthenes 6y ago
Enough for what? Cheaper nuclear power on the grid may actually increase demand for other goods, so it's not clear how much the benefit would be.

whatisthiseven 6y ago

No, power generation is about a quarter: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Transportation could push that total to 50% if all ICE cars were converted or destroyed and only electric vehicles were used (ignoring ships and trains). "Industry" includes CO2 waste byproducts which are much harder to reduce as many processes may struggle to eliminate that byproduct. Instead capture and sequestration would be needed. This is another 25% The rest are small, but since we need virtually all CO2 emissions to be zero, we are left with nearly another 25% that isn't tied to electric production and is difficult to replace. So, 50% of all CO2 isn't power generation related.

nip180 6y ago

In the US we generate on average 0.99lb of CO2 per kWh. The total output is 1.87b tons of CO2. Total CO2 emissions in the US were about 5.17b tons. So about 1/3 of emissions. It’s worth doing, considering we can reasonably execute this in a decade. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...

cameldrv 6y ago

It’s possible to synthesize hydrocarbon and other liquid fuels using CO2 from the air, or hydrogen which has no carbon in it. If you have a closed loop with your carbon, you eliminate the problem (still have particulates, NO etc, but that’s separate)

antisthenes 6y ago

Enough for what? Cheaper nuclear power on the grid may actually increase demand for other goods, so it's not clear how much the benefit would be.