4 ms·

From a very high level I wonder if we could use nuclear power to drive a CO2 capture mechanism to ‘make up’ for all the time spent burning fossil fuels instead

by mentos 4y ago

From a very high level I wonder if we could use nuclear power to drive a CO2 capture mechanism to ‘make up’ for all the time spent burning fossil fuels instead of nuclear?

dotnet00 4y ago
If we were willing to significantly overbuild nuclear power production capability yes, but from what I understand with current carbon capture efficiency it's more effective to have that nuclear power directly offset current energy consumption instead.
- themoonisachees 4y ago
  From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy usage. [0] https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Carbon capture is not a scam, but it is premature. It could make sense once fossil fuels are abolished, or at least we stop using them at fixed locations where CO2 can be captured without releasing it to the atmosphere.
  - kbenson 4y ago
    It depends on the speed of capture. If you can capture faster than conversion reduces, and there are time constraints that mean reducing carbon now is better than later, then it can make sense. It's the same as whether you should reduce expenses or increase income. Both yield a net increase, but there are variables than can make one better than the other in the short term. Whichever yields the most benefit for the effort is probably the best one, or if one has a time constraints and the other doesn't, that might be the best one to focus on.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    Except that energy production is local, while carbon capture is global. If you power a carbon capture device in Greenland using geothermal, you can probably get a lot more energy than you can reasonably give you the grid. In that case, using the rest for carbon capture makes sense. Further, carbon capture is going to need to be part of our future mix, as we'll never be able to be 100% green in the reasonable future. It's good to spend a tiny percentage of our resources now improving the technology.
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    This videos shows the perverse mindset of climate activists that you "have to change your lifestyle" and personally suffer to solve the problem. It's a common refrain and erroneous, but here particularly so as only carbon capture, mechanical or natural, can fully solve the problem -- that is, there's already too much greenhouse effect and even an extreme agrarian lifestyle won't solve the problem. Climate change is a problem nobody can personally solve and I think this personal suffering makes them feel like they're doing something.
  - fooker 4y ago
    The counterpoint is that energy can be difficult to transport, but the atmosphere dissipates carbon for free. So it might sense to do this where you produce energy, to use up extra energy which could be otherwise wasted.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    I wouldn't go as far as to argue that it's a scam, I do think it's a complex issue which might require rethinking the way we geographically distribute infrastructure. Carbon capture from the atmosphere is certainly extremely inefficient and not too practical (yet, at least), but carbon capture straight from large emitters like at factories should be much more efficient as it isn't having to go through as much air. Combined with the difficulty of transporting electricity in many circumstances, carbon capture solutions which involve cleaning up the output from factories using something like an on-site small-modular reactor are probably a lot more practical. While of course the SMR would be better spent replacing a fossil fuel plant in the immediate term, in the longer term the output from the factory would also need to be cleaned up anyway. So given enough serious interest in building SMRs/getting rid of fossil fuels, the temporary cost of allocating an SMR to carbon capture at a factory would be small compared to allocating it to replacing a fossil fuel plant (since another would be built soon enough to replace the latter).
  - incrudible 4y ago
    So far, nobody needs a permit to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. You can harvest it without license, at any scale. Building a power line, possibly across international borders, is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare.
epistasis 4y ago
There are many many many startups focused on this. If we engage in the amount of carbon capture that is predicted to be necessary in the second half of the century, we will be moving the same order of mass of air-extracted carbon to its fins resting place each year that we are currently moving for fueling. So a massive massive economy is expected to be built around this. Nuclear power is unlikely to make financial sense as a source of electricity for this process. Many of the early pioneers were big supporters of nuclear for it last decade, but solar photovoltaic has made nuclear obsolete in comparison. I think the name of that startup was Carbon Engineering, bawd out of Canada... the founder was completely shocked at the advancement in solar, and at the time (a few years ago) thought that, by 2030, it would be possible to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels out of air+solar for roughly the same cost or lower as fossil fuels.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > If we engage in the amount of carbon capture that is predicted to be necessary in the second half of the century, we will be moving the same order of mass of air-extracted carbon to its fins resting place each year that we are currently moving for fueling. So a massive massive economy is expected to be built around this That whole uncosted industry is a fairy tale at this point. We dont gave political will to price carbon properly abd stop burning coal, there is no chance this industry will be funded
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Your prediction does not take into account the cost of not building the industry. Right now in the US, the political climate is completely irrational, unscientific, and hyper-partisan because one of the major parties has been completely bight off and brainwashed their followers into ignoring rational thought. When the effects become more clear, and the actual costs of inaction become more clear, there is a good chance that humans will behave more rationally. Not certain, but it's a chance that we must plan for now.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      I really hope you are roght, but I am not holding my breath
bparsons 4y ago
This would be a good investment once the grid is over 100% renewable. Until then, just use the renewable power for consumption.
- bink 4y ago
  Figuring out the technology so we'll be ready when we get there sounds like a good plan.

by mentos 4y ago

From a very high level I wonder if we could use nuclear power to drive a CO2 capture mechanism to ‘make up’ for all the time spent burning fossil fuels instead of nuclear?

dotnet00 4y ago

If we were willing to significantly overbuild nuclear power production capability yes, but from what I understand with current carbon capture efficiency it's more effective to have that nuclear power directly offset current energy consumption instead.

themoonisachees 4y ago
From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy usage. [0] https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Carbon capture is not a scam, but it is premature. It could make sense once fossil fuels are abolished, or at least we stop using them at fixed locations where CO2 can be captured without releasing it to the atmosphere.
- kbenson 4y ago
  It depends on the speed of capture. If you can capture faster than conversion reduces, and there are time constraints that mean reducing carbon now is better than later, then it can make sense. It's the same as whether you should reduce expenses or increase income. Both yield a net increase, but there are variables than can make one better than the other in the short term. Whichever yields the most benefit for the effort is probably the best one, or if one has a time constraints and the other doesn't, that might be the best one to focus on.
- SamBam 4y ago
  Except that energy production is local, while carbon capture is global. If you power a carbon capture device in Greenland using geothermal, you can probably get a lot more energy than you can reasonably give you the grid. In that case, using the rest for carbon capture makes sense. Further, carbon capture is going to need to be part of our future mix, as we'll never be able to be 100% green in the reasonable future. It's good to spend a tiny percentage of our resources now improving the technology.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  This videos shows the perverse mindset of climate activists that you "have to change your lifestyle" and personally suffer to solve the problem. It's a common refrain and erroneous, but here particularly so as only carbon capture, mechanical or natural, can fully solve the problem -- that is, there's already too much greenhouse effect and even an extreme agrarian lifestyle won't solve the problem. Climate change is a problem nobody can personally solve and I think this personal suffering makes them feel like they're doing something.
- fooker 4y ago
  The counterpoint is that energy can be difficult to transport, but the atmosphere dissipates carbon for free. So it might sense to do this where you produce energy, to use up extra energy which could be otherwise wasted.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  I wouldn't go as far as to argue that it's a scam, I do think it's a complex issue which might require rethinking the way we geographically distribute infrastructure. Carbon capture from the atmosphere is certainly extremely inefficient and not too practical (yet, at least), but carbon capture straight from large emitters like at factories should be much more efficient as it isn't having to go through as much air. Combined with the difficulty of transporting electricity in many circumstances, carbon capture solutions which involve cleaning up the output from factories using something like an on-site small-modular reactor are probably a lot more practical. While of course the SMR would be better spent replacing a fossil fuel plant in the immediate term, in the longer term the output from the factory would also need to be cleaned up anyway. So given enough serious interest in building SMRs/getting rid of fossil fuels, the temporary cost of allocating an SMR to carbon capture at a factory would be small compared to allocating it to replacing a fossil fuel plant (since another would be built soon enough to replace the latter).
- incrudible 4y ago
  So far, nobody needs a permit to capture CO2 from the atmosphere. You can harvest it without license, at any scale. Building a power line, possibly across international borders, is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare.

epistasis 4y ago

There are many many many startups focused on this. If we engage in the amount of carbon capture that is predicted to be necessary in the second half of the century, we will be moving the same order of mass of air-extracted carbon to its fins resting place each year that we are currently moving for fueling. So a massive massive economy is expected to be built around this. Nuclear power is unlikely to make financial sense as a source of electricity for this process. Many of the early pioneers were big supporters of nuclear for it last decade, but solar photovoltaic has made nuclear obsolete in comparison. I think the name of that startup was Carbon Engineering, bawd out of Canada... the founder was completely shocked at the advancement in solar, and at the time (a few years ago) thought that, by 2030, it would be possible to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels out of air+solar for roughly the same cost or lower as fossil fuels.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> If we engage in the amount of carbon capture that is predicted to be necessary in the second half of the century, we will be moving the same order of mass of air-extracted carbon to its fins resting place each year that we are currently moving for fueling. So a massive massive economy is expected to be built around this That whole uncosted industry is a fairy tale at this point. We dont gave political will to price carbon properly abd stop burning coal, there is no chance this industry will be funded
- epistasis 4y ago
  Your prediction does not take into account the cost of not building the industry. Right now in the US, the political climate is completely irrational, unscientific, and hyper-partisan because one of the major parties has been completely bight off and brainwashed their followers into ignoring rational thought. When the effects become more clear, and the actual costs of inaction become more clear, there is a good chance that humans will behave more rationally. Not certain, but it's a chance that we must plan for now.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I really hope you are roght, but I am not holding my breath

bparsons 4y ago

This would be a good investment once the grid is over 100% renewable. Until then, just use the renewable power for consumption.

bink 4y ago
Figuring out the technology so we'll be ready when we get there sounds like a good plan.