Skip to main content

Have you heard of carbon removal?

A climate technology startup aims to suck carbon from the atmosphere using a new type of nuclear power plant that’s never been built in the United States.

 https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-docs-carbon-removal-proposal-bets-on-rare-nuclear-reactors/

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can't help feeling that while this technology is designed to suck CO2 from the air it will for sure suck dollars from my wallet.

We're still awaiting charging stations from the billions in congressional spending.

Obama had Solyndra, we'll see if Biden can one up his predecessor.
Anonymous said…
The economics of modular reactors involves their mass production, hence the modular and deployable design. The issue is that there is very little demand, perhaps none at all, and the long time to license and build them is combined with the higher cost of capital that now prevails

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuscale-layoffs-nuclear-power_n_65985ac5e4b075f4cfd24dba

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuscale-uamps-nuclear_n_654c317ce4b088d9a74d17db

https://hbr.org/2023/03/capital-is-expensive-again-now-what

These articles mention cost overruns as well. At the same time, of course, costs of wind and solar, as well as energy storage are dropping steadily.

As an aside, if this technology efficiently removes CO2 from the air, I wonder why we can't just power it with coal, and pump those emissions into the ground along with the other carbon it removes. Wyoming where this project is located has immense coal reserves that can be produced at low cost, of course, it is the nation's largest coal producing state.
Anonymous said…
This seems somewhat practical as well, an international project to reduce atmospheric CO2 by refrigerating air in the freezing weather thereby forming CO2 snow: (very little water is contained in air at extremely low temperatuers)

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/52/2/jamc-d-12-0110.1.xml

This would require a few hundred gigawatts of energy to be made available, this could be done by windmills as he suggests, nuclear power plans, or perhaps by beaming the energy from space in the form of microwaves onto special receiver arrays, using orbiting solar arrays - there could perhaps be other options as well of course,

The CO2 would then be placed for long-term storage in insulated landfills, there might be a low rate of overall sublimation due to insulation of course, which would be easy to deal with.

It does require some intrastructure construction in antarctica but the amount needed could be relatively minimal.

It does look especially feasible if undertaken by many countries rather than one, which would make sense anyways due to the treaties in place around antacctica.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...