5 ms·

Armchair strategizing on the topic I know nothing about (but it's fun to think about!): Constraints: - C removal requires lots of energy (can't avoid thermody

by senko 6y ago

Armchair strategizing on the topic I know nothing about (but it's fun to think about!): Constraints: - C removal requires lots of energy (can't avoid thermodynamics) - electricity on that scale is either expensive, dirty, or both Additional concerns: - cheap/clean energy is intermittent (and still a small percentage) - excessive electricity is as bad as not enough electricity Solution: - build lots of new (safe and cheaper) nuclear power plants - hook them up to the grid and use them as peakers (!), and using them for C removal on off-times This: - provides cheap and clean (from the perspective of C footprint) energy - solves the intermittency problem of wind/solar - provides abundant energy for C removal Assumption: that safe nuclear fission power plants (using Thorium, MSR, .. reactors) are feasible and can be built on the cheap (for some value of "cheap")

cagenut 6y ago
I really like your idea on a personal 'neat' would-be-nice level, but it makes one of the most common mistakes in the nuclear<->climate-change discussion: time. The development of next-gen/thorium/msr/whatever from first-commercial-success to repeatable-and-therefore-cheaper is, even in a highly optimistic scenario, a 30+ year proposition. I fervently believe we should fund and invest in that r&d, but even if it pans out (which I bet it would, but you have to acknowledge its our guess), its simply not a part of our "it is time to act now" timeline. I do this all the time too, its largely a part of the fact that many of us are middle aged men now. We were taught to think of, and mentally frame this as, an "over the course of the next several decades" type of problem. In which case a nuclear solution was fairly obviously the best path available. The problem is we didn't take that path. And the decades have passed. So while we should start down that path now ASAP from an r&d/investment perspective, it is almost completely a distraction today from a "net-zero in 20-30 years" perspective. I guess what I'm mostly trying to say is, whenever engaging in the climate-change/energy-generation-mix "debate" these days, try to mentally factor in time as one of the top constraints in your model. Here's an IPCC chart of four example scenarios that show you what the slope of the curves need to look like: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
- DennisP 6y ago
  Yes, if we rapidly decarbonize to renewables and figure out the storage issue, we don't need nuclear. And we should certainly attempt that. But if we overshoot, like in that P4 scenario, we're going to need massive carbon capture down the road, and nuclear fits quite well into that scenario. Also, if storage remains expensive at scale, so that wind/solar gets very expensive past 80% market penetration, nuclear would be a low-carbon way to fill in that last 20%. It doesn't do away with the need to roll out wind/solar as fast as we can, but it helps us with the hard part later. Nuclear also may be well-suited for industrial applications requiring process heat instead of electricity.
lamontcg 6y ago
Nuclear isn't cheap. Molten salt thorium reactors are seriously not cheap, and if you can handle molten salt that well, you can use it to store solar power and release it later and solve the intermittency problem.
jobigoud 6y ago
You'll have to pick two among fast, safe and cheap.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
For the specific application of carbon capture (CC), electricity intermittency is not a big deal; just cover a square mile with PV panels and capture carbon while the sun shines. (Assuming you have a viable CC technology in the first place.)

by senko 6y ago

cagenut 6y ago

I really like your idea on a personal 'neat' would-be-nice level, but it makes one of the most common mistakes in the nuclear<->climate-change discussion: time. The development of next-gen/thorium/msr/whatever from first-commercial-success to repeatable-and-therefore-cheaper is, even in a highly optimistic scenario, a 30+ year proposition. I fervently believe we should fund and invest in that r&d, but even if it pans out (which I bet it would, but you have to acknowledge its our guess), its simply not a part of our "it is time to act now" timeline. I do this all the time too, its largely a part of the fact that many of us are middle aged men now. We were taught to think of, and mentally frame this as, an "over the course of the next several decades" type of problem. In which case a nuclear solution was fairly obviously the best path available. The problem is we didn't take that path. And the decades have passed. So while we should start down that path now ASAP from an r&d/investment perspective, it is almost completely a distraction today from a "net-zero in 20-30 years" perspective. I guess what I'm mostly trying to say is, whenever engaging in the climate-change/energy-generation-mix "debate" these days, try to mentally factor in time as one of the top constraints in your model. Here's an IPCC chart of four example scenarios that show you what the slope of the curves need to look like: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...

DennisP 6y ago
Yes, if we rapidly decarbonize to renewables and figure out the storage issue, we don't need nuclear. And we should certainly attempt that. But if we overshoot, like in that P4 scenario, we're going to need massive carbon capture down the road, and nuclear fits quite well into that scenario. Also, if storage remains expensive at scale, so that wind/solar gets very expensive past 80% market penetration, nuclear would be a low-carbon way to fill in that last 20%. It doesn't do away with the need to roll out wind/solar as fast as we can, but it helps us with the hard part later. Nuclear also may be well-suited for industrial applications requiring process heat instead of electricity.

lamontcg 6y ago

Nuclear isn't cheap. Molten salt thorium reactors are seriously not cheap, and if you can handle molten salt that well, you can use it to store solar power and release it later and solve the intermittency problem.

jobigoud 6y ago

You'll have to pick two among fast, safe and cheap.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

For the specific application of carbon capture (CC), electricity intermittency is not a big deal; just cover a square mile with PV panels and capture carbon while the sun shines. (Assuming you have a viable CC technology in the first place.)