4 ms·

I don't think nuclear, solar, wind or hydro plants produce much CO2.

by chc 12y ago

fiatmoney 12y ago
The manufacturing, maintenance, & mining processes backing them do, albeit less than, e.g., a coal-fired power plant.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
The whole premise of carbon capture is that we're still burning fossil fuels. If the world literally eliminated 100% of carbon emissions then biological carbon sinks (plants) would eventually restore the natural equilibrium, the problem is we're burning more carbon than they can keep up with. Using nuclear power to sequester carbon is useless if someone else is still using carbon to power their air conditioner or whatever, you would do better to just use the nuclear power to run the air conditioner.
- bdamm 12y ago
  There are lots of good reasons to burn carbon to produce energy. What we need is a carbon tax that goes to operations such as these, bound to the waste energy from nuclear or solar plants, for example. That way the carbon emissions can be offset by the carbon intake. Maybe we could burn all the carbon we wanted, at a rate even far exceeding the rate we make carbon emissions today, if those emissions were balanced with large-scale carbon removal. If that carbon removal produced fuel, that would be fine - the balance would be a lot closer to zero, and more importantly, we could have a control on the acceptable carbon in the atmosphere.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    There is no "burn all the carbon we wanted" regardless of climate change because we're eventually going to run out of cheap oil. The cost of recovering it will eventually exceed the cost of renewable energy. The problem is that waiting until that point to stop burning oil and coal would do catastrophic damage to the planet. The thing that makes much better sense is to have a carbon tax and use the money to subsidize non-fossil energy on a per KWh basis, and set the amount such that it makes non-fossil energy cheaper. Do that and the market would sort it out in short order.
    - bdamm 12y ago
      We are in complete agreement in that the way out of the current mess is a world-scale governmental movement to assert policy change that at least tries to solve the problem of human created environmental change, and carbon dioxide specifically. I don't think we will run out of "cheap" oil though, since oil can be produced from coal and coal is hugely abundant. I agree that waiting for oil to become more expensive than renewables before investing in renewables, or in other words expecting free market dynamics to solve the problem, is not going to work.
- DennisP 12y ago
  That's true, but if electric vehicles don't take over the world, a useful application could be to use nuclear power to make liquid fuels. We could have a carbon-neutral civilization with the same cars, gas stations, and pipelines we have right now.
- wcoenen 12y ago
  > If the world literally eliminated 100% of carbon emissions then biological carbon sinks (plants) would eventually restore the natural equilibrium Unfortunately this would take several centuries, maybe a 1000 years. Weirdly enough this is sometimes used as an argument not to cut emissions[1]. Also, we're not in equilibrium right now. The consequences of the CO2 that is already emitted have not yet fully manifested themselves. If we don't want to live for centuries with those consequences, then cutting all emissions is not enough. We'll have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere somehow. [1] http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_admits_no_gain_from_this_carbon_tax_pain http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...

I don't think nuclear, solar, wind or hydro plants produce much CO2.

by chc 12y ago

I don't think nuclear, solar, wind or hydro plants produce much CO2.

fiatmoney 12y ago

The manufacturing, maintenance, & mining processes backing them do, albeit less than, e.g., a coal-fired power plant.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

The whole premise of carbon capture is that we're still burning fossil fuels. If the world literally eliminated 100% of carbon emissions then biological carbon sinks (plants) would eventually restore the natural equilibrium, the problem is we're burning more carbon than they can keep up with. Using nuclear power to sequester carbon is useless if someone else is still using carbon to power their air conditioner or whatever, you would do better to just use the nuclear power to run the air conditioner.

bdamm 12y ago
There are lots of good reasons to burn carbon to produce energy. What we need is a carbon tax that goes to operations such as these, bound to the waste energy from nuclear or solar plants, for example. That way the carbon emissions can be offset by the carbon intake. Maybe we could burn all the carbon we wanted, at a rate even far exceeding the rate we make carbon emissions today, if those emissions were balanced with large-scale carbon removal. If that carbon removal produced fuel, that would be fine - the balance would be a lot closer to zero, and more importantly, we could have a control on the acceptable carbon in the atmosphere.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  There is no "burn all the carbon we wanted" regardless of climate change because we're eventually going to run out of cheap oil. The cost of recovering it will eventually exceed the cost of renewable energy. The problem is that waiting until that point to stop burning oil and coal would do catastrophic damage to the planet. The thing that makes much better sense is to have a carbon tax and use the money to subsidize non-fossil energy on a per KWh basis, and set the amount such that it makes non-fossil energy cheaper. Do that and the market would sort it out in short order.
  - bdamm 12y ago
    We are in complete agreement in that the way out of the current mess is a world-scale governmental movement to assert policy change that at least tries to solve the problem of human created environmental change, and carbon dioxide specifically. I don't think we will run out of "cheap" oil though, since oil can be produced from coal and coal is hugely abundant. I agree that waiting for oil to become more expensive than renewables before investing in renewables, or in other words expecting free market dynamics to solve the problem, is not going to work.
DennisP 12y ago
That's true, but if electric vehicles don't take over the world, a useful application could be to use nuclear power to make liquid fuels. We could have a carbon-neutral civilization with the same cars, gas stations, and pipelines we have right now.
wcoenen 12y ago
> If the world literally eliminated 100% of carbon emissions then biological carbon sinks (plants) would eventually restore the natural equilibrium Unfortunately this would take several centuries, maybe a 1000 years. Weirdly enough this is sometimes used as an argument not to cut emissions[1]. Also, we're not in equilibrium right now. The consequences of the CO2 that is already emitted have not yet fully manifested themselves. If we don't want to live for centuries with those consequences, then cutting all emissions is not enough. We'll have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere somehow. [1] http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_admits_no_gain_from_this_carbon_tax_pain http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...