Short answer: no
Long answer: noooooooooo
Detailed explanation: No, because definitely not.
If they think it's unfeasible (we don't have the tech currently to do it on a large scale) they should at least explain their reasons
No. It's mostly smoke and mirrors. Why are fossil fuel companies so interested in this technology? They use the captured CO2 to extract additional oil from wells. It's just another distraction to avoid the elephant in the room and continue business as usual.
The answer is No
This user is surely negative
https://old.reddit.com/user/greenman5252/
I'm a chemist working on the (electro)conversion of CO2 into economically valuable products. In my opinion, making this process profitable would be the only way to convince big companies to significantly invest in the process. I can tell you that we are far from making the process economically viable
Edit: to clarify, I'm not defending that we should prioritize the economy. I'm saying that that's what policy makers/ big companies prioritize, so it won't happen until the process is profitable, which is far from now. We thus rely on different approaches to mitigate climate change
A sensible comment
Bonus on doomering about millions dying in India during heat waves just a few years from now
We are going to have a heat wave combined with power failure that kills millions by the end of the decade.
You get a wet bulb temp weather system that settles over a city for a couple days, and the power system goes down.
The opening chapter of the novel "The Ministry for the Future" is a description of just this scenario, and it is hands down one of the most horrifying things I have ever read.
Yup that chapter was sickeningly realistic
The heat wave deaths are then followed by a massive pandemic as millions of corpses liquefy in the heat. The whole city would be a biohazard for a long time
I just started this book yesterday and this post made me do a double take. I had a moment of like, “wait…that's too real”
!bookworms JUST LIKE KSR THE MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE! 
Rip @Sasanka_of_Gauda
@ABC and other sexy Indian dudes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But... the "different approaches" that are typically presented also aren't profitable.
I'm all for pushing for more efficiency machinery and appliances, and I think there's plenty of room to grow in that direction. But trying to get the public to willingly go along with regressing their quality of life in the name of climate change is like pushing abstinence education on a bunch of teenagers. It's straight up not going to work. IMO the only realistic way "out of" the current situation is more technology/R&D, not austerity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's important to admit there is not going to be any “degrowth”, the public wants to tackle climate change but they're not willing to do so if it leads to a decline in their lifestyles.
Reducing emissions by replacing coal, oil and gas with renewables is the most important part but carbon capturing and geoengineering research must also be kept on the table
!engineering
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just build nuclear. Seriously.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I love nuclear power, I live next to the 2nd largest Hydropower dam in the world (Itaipu) but I wished Brazil built more nuclear power plants instead of that new Xingu dam in the Amazon.
Meanwhile Angra 3 reactor construction has been a clusterfrick due to mismanagement and corruption
!macacos
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes build nuclear powerplants so that mossad can sabotage them and cause nuclear meltdowns
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Protip: don't be Iranian
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
A usina nuclear de Angra dos Reis esta localizada no estado do Rio de Janeiro, estado que é lar da segunda maior população judaica do Brasil e diferentemente de Chernobyl os reatores Angra 1 e 2 ficam dentro de magnificos prédios de contenção feitos de concreto reforçado da melhor qualidade.
Não me preocupo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That sounds like a reason to destroy Israel not to stop using nuclear
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The frick is Mossad going to sabotage Brazil for?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Fun
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The new generation of rebreeder reactors are supposed to be really good, and (supposedly) physically incapable of meltdown. People are weirdly skittish about nuclear power but happy with all kinds of other dangerous shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The public also lacks awareness with respect to reactor design. The RMBK in Chernobyl are not comparable to any reactor in the US or Brazil. For instance, a commercial plane could crash against a contention building and the reactor inside wouldn't suffer a scratch
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I always see this sort of fact posted but I have a hard time actually believing it.
Not anti-nuclear but I feel like it's a bit too enthusiastic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It has to do with concrete rather than the reactor itself. The walls of the containment building are typically 1.5 meters thick, thats A LOT of reinforced concrete.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306454904002130
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It works both ways too; keeps terrorists out and steam leaks in.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Planes are hollow aluminum tubes designed to be as light as possible. They're not bunker buster munitions
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Depends if your mom's on it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The tragedy with nuclear power is that it is rather expensive and potentially "inefficient" (in dollar terms) currently, but that's largely because we more or less eliminated R&D towards better nuclear reactors decades ago. If we had kept up research, we'd probably have very safe and even cost-effective reactor designs today. But there's so much red tape (here in the US) around them that it's virtually impossible to get them up and running. Regulations have effectively banned the construction of new reactors.
Solar and wind power are cool and I think they're actually excellent in situations where you need a (relatively) small amount of power generated far away from an electric grid, but just realistically they will never replace "baseline" power generation. We straight up don't have the energy storage technology to make a system built on these transient power sources work if they happen to go out for any lengthy amount of time. Sometimes you can go a week or even more without any significant sunshine.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pumped hydro is a great solution in mountainous areas for storing renewables.
Sadly, we as a country have decided to never build hydro again despite it being an incredible power source with benefits to agriculture as well
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're right that pumped hydro is the best storage method we currently have for bulk energy storage. Far more efficient and feasible than any kind of chemical battery (and arguably simpler too).
But how large would a pumped hydro station have to be to store, for example, enough electricity to power Seattle for a whole week? Because they regularly have over a week with little sun exposure up there. I figure switching to an entirely-renewable power production grid would require as much if not more development of energy storage systems than energy generation systems, and it seems like an issue that pro-renewables people always gloss over since it's just not something you really have to worry about when renewables are only providing a small fraction of the total electricity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Seattle would be easy. There's huge steep mountains 30 miles east, and a number of rivers and valleys that have heavy logging activity where massive hydro projects could be built with fairly minimal environment impact. Arguably, it would be good for the ecosystem as unpredictable snowpacks have serious impacts on river health late summer and fall.
Additionally, there's big wind and solar developments barely 100 miles away in the sunny and windy Columbia plateau region with long distance transmission lines already in place running east-west and north-south.
Of course, it will never be built because the same NIMBYs who drive Teslas past the homeless camps they vote to give free drugs to would protest furiously about anything that would create energy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
live neoconshill doxx
Eu sou super a favor de energia nuclear
Best case scenario Energia abundante e barata
Worst case scenario holocausto nuclear no Brasil
win-win
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Que legal
And Argentina?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
3 reactors, they also have a nuclear research facility in Bariloche. Fun fact, the airbnb apartment I stayed there was owned by an old lady who was a widow of a physicist who worked there, they moved in the 1960s, I bet she had some cool stories. Back in the 50s Perón built a fusion research facility led by a crackpot Austrian physicist named Ronald Richter, and it turned out to be a grift (he said they had achieved Fusion lmao).
!historychads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Full of BIPOCs last I checked
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Já virou conhecimento geral que moro no oeste do Paraná
Usinas em SP, RJ, Brasilia (8 reatores no DF), Recife, Salvador, Maceio, Fortaleza e Manaus. Bem pertinho dos centros metropolitanos
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I also wish to die of radiation poisoning
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only kitties die and don't gain superpowers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Build the Usina Nuclear Roberto Requião in Curitiba. 4 reactors
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I will personally cause it to meltdown and destroy the whole city
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Roberto Requião, Beto Richa, Alvaro Dias
Between these guys pick which would you “kill, marry, frick”
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kill Requião (as any good Curitibano I hate him with all my heart)
Marry Richa (I'm fairly sure he's the richest)
Frick Dias (he's a notorious crossdresser)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nuclear is literally ancient, outdated tech at this point. 20-30 years ago you might have had a point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Base load renewables literally don't exist, except for nuclear. And don't come at me with "just don't use any electricity at night"
It's only "outdated" because we stopped researching it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well duh, that's what I said
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So... start looking into it again maybe? If climate change is the absolute number one "we're all going to die next year if we don't fix this" priority, it would make sense to explore a seemingly viable option.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It makes no sense to put resources into bringing ancient tech up to speed if you can use those resources instead on modern technology.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Can you name a modern renewable technology that can fill the need for constant base electricity capacity, especially at massive (gigawatt) scales? There's geothermal I guess, but it isn't exactly at the forefront either. The options for this are coal, gas, or nuclear.
Also, "ancient"? In terms of electricity generation modes it was discovered yesterday.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
We didn't stop researching. There are at least a dozen new reactor designs that have been created in the past 2 decades. There's just been no one putting up the money to build them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Have any of them been NRC-approved tho (besides the AP1000 and BWR-whatever which are just incremental to last gen)
(all my homies hate the NRC)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not a clue. I think the Pebble Bed looks like a neat design though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is the most intelligent and sensible thing you've ever posted on this website.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is the most intelligent thing anyone has ever said.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You alright, BB, you alright.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm doing great man, how about you?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The main problem (I am a huge nuclear power sperg) is that I wouldn't trust the current generation of burger engineers (the most diverse in history) to build them. We'd have to hire french or koreans (or get the navy to civilianize their propulsion reactor production), and we'd have to kneecap the NRC and "environmental" lobby so they couldn't delay it at every conceivable stage of the process.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The power of solar and wind shouldn't be underestimated but literally why can't we just build the stuff that makes ludicrous amounts of energy with no greenhouse gas effects?
Remind me again why environmentalists dislike nuclear? Is it just wingcuckery or do they really have an image of nuclear waste being these big yellow barrels that leak glowing green fluid?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's mostly this. And Chernobyl really scared the shit out of everyone, even though it was a product of soviet echo chamber engineering and its meltdown scenario isn't physically possible in western reactors.
Widespread nuclear power would /solve the problem/ (without requiring "degrowth"/civilizational suicide), which would force them to find something /else/ to complain about and form a death cult around.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Probably more wingcuckery at this point. Most criticisms I see of nuclear that aren't entirely about cost effectiveness, end up including some bullshit about hating "magic bullets" for climate change other than societal reorganization under x wingcuck idea.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's kinda what I meant; if we solve the problem with nuclear power there's no longer anything for them to form a wingcuck death or communism cult around. It is absolutely ludicrous that nuclear power became rightwing-coded, yet here we are.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Greenpeace was run by useful idiots under control of the KGB.
For once, the Fr*nch did something right when they bombed the Rainbow Warrior.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Leave it up to the Frogs to do the wrong thing except when they do something impossibly based
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context