4 ms·
Is it feasible/possible to knowingly do that, and still 'win'? That is, power the process with nuclear or some renewable, not necessarily as a way to get fuel,
by silisili 3y ago
Is it feasible/possible to knowingly do that, and still 'win'? That is, power the process with nuclear or some renewable, not necessarily as a way to get fuel, but a way to get carbon out of the air?
- nomel 3y agoThis seems like far in the future, where the direct use of the nuclear wouldn't prevent more CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere, than could be removed.
- skaushik92 3y agoAlso, it could be wherever nuclear wouldn’t be permissible otherwise (e.g floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, away from populations that don’t want it nearby)
- cogman10 3y agoYup, said another way, this would only really make sense if we are producing more energy than we can reasonably use and need to sink it somewhere. However, there are so many sinks for energy that I just doubt CO2 will be a priority any time soon. Desalination, for example, will almost certainly end up being a huge energy sink as the world gets hotter.
- frankus 3y agoI have to wonder if at some point rich eccentrics will start installing CO2 scrubbers in their houses to bring the indoor concentration below 400 ppm.
- Qwertious 3y agoBoth carbon-capture and mass energy-storage are already fairly cheap if the energy is free and you don't care about efficiency. The problem is that free energy is a fantasy for the foreseeable future and thus an energy-inefficient process is a nearly useless process.
- ForgedEngine 3y agoBiomass is practically free (minus harvesting costs).
- upsuper 3y agoFree energy is not necessarily a fantasy. In Australia, the wholesale electricity price regularly goes into negative, usually many hours in an average day, reaching as low as -70c/kWh occasionally (more commonly -5c/kWh). There is just no enough energy sink to absorb all the power we generate from solar in the day time. If we can store some of this energy in a stable form, that would be a good win.
- ipaddr 3y agoThat's not unlimited it's solar generating more power than the grid needs at a given point in time. If that power could be used during that negative event something could storage that power. How often it goes negative, for how long vs how much time is required to start the storage process and costs to run will determine if the idea is appliable
- thelastgallon 3y agoElectric cars are the best energy storage for this supply. Cars are parked 23 hours/day, can be charged when price is negative. I'm certain at least some people would like to be paid for charging their cars.
- specialist 3y agoYes and: Colocating carbon capture with energy sources awaiting grid connections would uncork the backlog of new construction. In the USA, there's something like a terawatt of proposed projects stuck in the interconnection queue. We simply cannot wait for the queue to catch up with the financing of these shovel ready projects. ETFuels is one example of this strategy. Build next to cheap electricity, pump out e-fuels like methanol and ammonia. Today. And then H2 in the future, when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out. https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#details https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#d...
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoNuclear is six times as expensive as wind/solar. I wish it wasn't true, but it's the Lazard numbers