when you are thinking of carbon capture, i do not know what methods you are thinking off. so as a general rule, i wrote major methods of just energy generation - once you have energy, there are tons of ways to do tons of things. Basically, if you can write it in a reaction form, it would be doable, however much unfeasable it is. For example, metal extraction, is definitely thermodynamically unfavorable, but how do we do it - energy. Either by beurning stuff, or electrolytic, or chemically, as long as you are willing to give energy, reactions can happen.
This above passgae is mostly to answer your “relevancy” questions, to sum up basically - once you have the energy, it does not matter where it is generated how it is transported, we can just use it
you skipped wind power
I do not consider wind power to be a good source of energy. It is more available than hydro/geo thermal, but not less than solar or hydro (specifically gravitational hydro) power. They are huge and really expensive, and also not energy dense.
it’s clear you’re just being biased
yes i am, it is not something to shame about
Nuclear power plants require tons of rare materials built precisely or else disaster happens. Practically, they’re less clean than wind, water, geothermal, and the (for now inefficient) rare earth free solar panels.
yes, technically.
Mining for nuclear ores is most definitely very destructive, but it has the extreme benefit of energy density. Consider it like this, 1 kg of coal, if converted to energy completely - maybe you can cook food for a meal or 2. 1 kg of Uranium (fissile) even at 10% conversion efficiency - you can cook for 100s if not 1000s of meals. Math is simple, chemical reactions just do not produce as much energy as fission. And this is considering very real fission of very common uranium. Think about when we can finally start doing thorium (more common than fissile U)(we can still do thorium, nothing is stopping us other than some big people trusting/investing in it). And if we ever get to fusion, increase the meal count by 2-3 orders. And fusion sources are relatively cleaner (if D2O, then basically infinite and free, and we take Berryilium, then not as energy intensive (“just” an order of 2 jump), rare, but not that much).
A nice way to reuse infrastructure
Exactly my point, instead of getting 100s of meals, we can get atleast 10s of meals, but without changing much about the plant (all the steam turbine part stays same) and this will allow to have smaller cities to also get nuclear, instead of just big cities. And also reduce the economical damage to avoid damaing working condition plants by just stopping their use.
when you are thinking of carbon capture, i do not know what methods you are thinking off. so as a general rule, i wrote major methods of just energy generation - once you have energy, there are tons of ways to do tons of things. Basically, if you can write it in a reaction form, it would be doable, however much unfeasable it is. For example, metal extraction, is definitely thermodynamically unfavorable, but how do we do it - energy. Either by beurning stuff, or electrolytic, or chemically, as long as you are willing to give energy, reactions can happen.
This above passgae is mostly to answer your “relevancy” questions, to sum up basically - once you have the energy, it does not matter where it is generated how it is transported, we can just use it
I do not consider wind power to be a good source of energy. It is more available than hydro/geo thermal, but not less than solar or hydro (specifically gravitational hydro) power. They are huge and really expensive, and also not energy dense.
yes i am, it is not something to shame about
Mining for nuclear ores is most definitely very destructive, but it has the extreme benefit of energy density. Consider it like this, 1 kg of coal, if converted to energy completely - maybe you can cook food for a meal or 2. 1 kg of Uranium (fissile) even at 10% conversion efficiency - you can cook for 100s if not 1000s of meals. Math is simple, chemical reactions just do not produce as much energy as fission. And this is considering very real fission of very common uranium. Think about when we can finally start doing thorium (more common than fissile U)(we can still do thorium, nothing is stopping us other than some big people trusting/investing in it). And if we ever get to fusion, increase the meal count by 2-3 orders. And fusion sources are relatively cleaner (if D2O, then basically infinite and free, and we take Berryilium, then not as energy intensive (“just” an order of 2 jump), rare, but not that much).
Exactly my point, instead of getting 100s of meals, we can get atleast 10s of meals, but without changing much about the plant (all the steam turbine part stays same) and this will allow to have smaller cities to also get nuclear, instead of just big cities. And also reduce the economical damage to avoid damaing working condition plants by just stopping their use.