3 ms·

I really don't think all we need is cheap energy, it's still an economically unproductive thing to do, so you need a govt to tax people and use the $ to perform

I really don't think all we need is cheap energy, it's still an economically unproductive thing to do, so you need a govt to tax people and use the $ to perform sequestration. You need to build out the sequestration plants, maintain and run them, only one of those inputs is cheap energy. You need to move the carbon to a safe storage facility etc. It's still a huge undertaking, but would be way simpler if we had cheap electricity (which it seems like we will get via solar anyways, carbon sequestration could probably be turned on and off as needed for grid conditions)

blibble 4y ago
> You need to move the carbon to a safe storage facility etc. fortunately we already have millions of holes we drilled in the ground to get the stuff we burnt originally
colinmhayes 4y ago
Carbon tax + cheap energy = people starting carbon sequestration companies to sell credits to polluters. As long as the tax is high enough we can reach close to zero net emissions.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
  I agree, but also you really need regulation with teeth around what is a carbon credit. The voluntary market for carbon offsets is pretty sketchy right now. Cheap energy doesn't need to come from fusion, wind and solar are getting quite cheap, I suspect it'll take a loong time for fusion to get as cheap even after it's wall plug positive. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... 28 - 37 $/MWh for solar 26 - 50 $/MWh for wind This includes the maintenance and operating costs. Their estimate for maintenance costs of a pre-existing nuclear plant is 29 $/MWh. That means there are cases where it'd make financial sense to shutter a pre-existing plant to build a new solar array (obviously not all cases, the generation profile of nuclear is very nice for base load) Fusion is 10 years away from being able to generate more energy than it consumes, how far away is it from being able to be cost competitive with solar & wind?

blibble 4y ago

> You need to move the carbon to a safe storage facility etc. fortunately we already have millions of holes we drilled in the ground to get the stuff we burnt originally

colinmhayes 4y ago

Carbon tax + cheap energy = people starting carbon sequestration companies to sell credits to polluters. As long as the tax is high enough we can reach close to zero net emissions.

X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
I agree, but also you really need regulation with teeth around what is a carbon credit. The voluntary market for carbon offsets is pretty sketchy right now. Cheap energy doesn't need to come from fusion, wind and solar are getting quite cheap, I suspect it'll take a loong time for fusion to get as cheap even after it's wall plug positive. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... 28 - 37 $/MWh for solar 26 - 50 $/MWh for wind This includes the maintenance and operating costs. Their estimate for maintenance costs of a pre-existing nuclear plant is 29 $/MWh. That means there are cases where it'd make financial sense to shutter a pre-existing plant to build a new solar array (obviously not all cases, the generation profile of nuclear is very nice for base load) Fusion is 10 years away from being able to generate more energy than it consumes, how far away is it from being able to be cost competitive with solar & wind?