4 ms·

> No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing The cost to develop these railcars was 33 million, pe

> No doubt at great cost, none of which is being factored into current nuclear projects or energy pricing The cost to develop these railcars was 33 million, per the article. A rounding error in the cost of any energy source. Long term storage costs should be much lower than they are, but the DGR has been stymied since I was a child. Not to mention how most of this waste is actually a resource How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)?

eru 2y ago
> How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)? You can relatively easily do those calculations. The results are about what you'd expect: hydro, wind and solar don't get much more expensive; coal gets a lot more expensive, etc. Of course, details depend on what carbon pricing you use. Funny enough, to go off on a tangent: if solar keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, that could make coal viable even with carbon costs fully priced in. What I mean is: assume solar panels keep dropping in price so that electricity is approximately free when the sun is shining. But still has a very positive cost when the sun ain't shining. You can do some carry-over into the night with batteries, but seasonal storage all the way from summer to winter is much harder. Now here's something that becomes feasible: when you have excess electricity from your solar panels, capture carbon from the atmosphere to build up a deficit. Then, when you need power but no sun, you can burn coal and use up your carbon deficit. (I'm not suggesting this is in any way optimal, just that it might be feasible under certain circumstances; even if you fully account for carbon pricing.)
- jakewins 2y ago
  This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Direct air capture of carbon has, as I understand, extremely low efficiency. What would be the benefit of capturing carbon over making hydrogen?
  - eru 2y ago
    > This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Addendum: it's hard to store hydrogen for a long time. That stuff is so volatile, and even 'seeps' through steel. What I sketched would work for seasonal 'storage'. But you are right, that it's very likely far from the optimal thing to do.
  - eru 2y ago
    Yes, you could also make hydrogen when the sun is shining. (Or you could make methane.) Instead of doing direct carbon capture, you could also spend some energy to grind olivine rocks fine enough for something called 'enhanced weathering' to indirectly capture carbon.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
That 33 million only covers the rail cars. They would also need a destination. As for CO2, you are right. The fossil fuel industry has the same kind of blind spots.

eru 2y ago

> How much of current carbon emissions are being factored into the cost of electricity (for any of the various sources)? You can relatively easily do those calculations. The results are about what you'd expect: hydro, wind and solar don't get much more expensive; coal gets a lot more expensive, etc. Of course, details depend on what carbon pricing you use. Funny enough, to go off on a tangent: if solar keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, that could make coal viable even with carbon costs fully priced in. What I mean is: assume solar panels keep dropping in price so that electricity is approximately free when the sun is shining. But still has a very positive cost when the sun ain't shining. You can do some carry-over into the night with batteries, but seasonal storage all the way from summer to winter is much harder. Now here's something that becomes feasible: when you have excess electricity from your solar panels, capture carbon from the atmosphere to build up a deficit. Then, when you need power but no sun, you can burn coal and use up your carbon deficit. (I'm not suggesting this is in any way optimal, just that it might be feasible under certain circumstances; even if you fully account for carbon pricing.)

jakewins 2y ago
This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Direct air capture of carbon has, as I understand, extremely low efficiency. What would be the benefit of capturing carbon over making hydrogen?
- eru 2y ago
  > This sounds much less efficient than the current proposed path of electrolyzing hydrogen? Addendum: it's hard to store hydrogen for a long time. That stuff is so volatile, and even 'seeps' through steel. What I sketched would work for seasonal 'storage'. But you are right, that it's very likely far from the optimal thing to do.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, you could also make hydrogen when the sun is shining. (Or you could make methane.) Instead of doing direct carbon capture, you could also spend some energy to grind olivine rocks fine enough for something called 'enhanced weathering' to indirectly capture carbon.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

That 33 million only covers the rail cars. They would also need a destination. As for CO2, you are right. The fossil fuel industry has the same kind of blind spots.