6 ms·

A simple calculation of energy immediately reveals the entire endeavor as complete nonsense: more energy is spent producing and capturing the carbon than simply

by 127 3y ago

A simple calculation of energy immediately reveals the entire endeavor as complete nonsense: more energy is spent producing and capturing the carbon than simply modifying the process to produce less carbon. Just calculate how much carbon you would have to capture to reach one average nuclear power plant replacing equivalent coal power plant(s).

blueflow 3y ago
Just from the energy levels of carbon (high, burns well) and carbon dioxide (low, inert gas) you can deduce, if there is an sequestration facility that is worth the power it consumes, its a perpetual motion machine and impossible.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Nobody is claiming that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is producing energy, it will always cost some energy. When we reached zero carbon dioxide emissions, then one can consider actively lowering the carbon dioxide level by pulling some out of the atmosphere. But until then it is essentially avoiding carbon dioxide emissions vs continuing them and then spending more money to undo them. In principle this could work, if avoiding emissions in one place was more expensive than undoing them in another place - if we only had really bad batteries, then it might make sense to keep combustion engines and capture the carbon dioxide in stationary facilities. In practice and at scale I neither see it necessary nor feasible.
criddell 3y ago
It doesn’t really matter if more nuclear is the smartest way to attack this problem if voters won’t go for it. Sadly, I think the situation won’t change until things get a lot worse than they are now. We’re too divided.
- 127 3y ago
  To be darkly humorous, there is a probability that a very large recession looms in the horizon. Chinese property market crash, no replacement for driver of the world economy. Nosediving birth rates and population structures. Very soon global warming might solve itself: collapsing population and collapsing economy.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Population collapse is a very long way away, places like Nigeria and Chad continue to grow at an incredible rate and India won't top out for another 30 years at least. World population 100 years from will still be higher than today.

by 127 3y ago

blueflow 3y ago

Just from the energy levels of carbon (high, burns well) and carbon dioxide (low, inert gas) you can deduce, if there is an sequestration facility that is worth the power it consumes, its a perpetual motion machine and impossible.

danbruc 3y ago
Nobody is claiming that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is producing energy, it will always cost some energy. When we reached zero carbon dioxide emissions, then one can consider actively lowering the carbon dioxide level by pulling some out of the atmosphere. But until then it is essentially avoiding carbon dioxide emissions vs continuing them and then spending more money to undo them. In principle this could work, if avoiding emissions in one place was more expensive than undoing them in another place - if we only had really bad batteries, then it might make sense to keep combustion engines and capture the carbon dioxide in stationary facilities. In practice and at scale I neither see it necessary nor feasible.

criddell 3y ago

It doesn’t really matter if more nuclear is the smartest way to attack this problem if voters won’t go for it. Sadly, I think the situation won’t change until things get a lot worse than they are now. We’re too divided.

127 3y ago
To be darkly humorous, there is a probability that a very large recession looms in the horizon. Chinese property market crash, no replacement for driver of the world economy. Nosediving birth rates and population structures. Very soon global warming might solve itself: collapsing population and collapsing economy.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Population collapse is a very long way away, places like Nigeria and Chad continue to grow at an incredible rate and India won't top out for another 30 years at least. World population 100 years from will still be higher than today.