3 ms·

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 cent

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
coredog64 4y ago
Originally, these types of systems relied not only on the electricity but also some of the heat output of the nuclear plant. If you’re having to do both with solar, then the efficiency is that much lower. With that said, according to the abstract, this implementation doesn’t require excessive heat energy so you could probably get away with solar thermal for that bit.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Or because you don't need to do it on a schedule, just do it in a cold desert with high DNI like mongolia and use 60c/W thermal heliostats which are capable of higher temperatures for the heat rather than $4/W thermal nuclear.

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

coredog64 4y ago

Originally, these types of systems relied not only on the electricity but also some of the heat output of the nuclear plant. If you’re having to do both with solar, then the efficiency is that much lower. With that said, according to the abstract, this implementation doesn’t require excessive heat energy so you could probably get away with solar thermal for that bit.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Or because you don't need to do it on a schedule, just do it in a cold desert with high DNI like mongolia and use 60c/W thermal heliostats which are capable of higher temperatures for the heat rather than $4/W thermal nuclear.