This would basically be CO2 capture. The energy required to capture Carbon Dioxide is higher than the energy released by creating it in the first place - so it would be highly energy intensive. My son is actually working on this at Lancaster University. The power requirement would be so huge that electricity demand would probably double. It can be done but the power generation would have to entirely renewable (wind, solar etc) otherwise we'd just be going round in circles. Far better to not produce the bloody stuff in the first place.
Why would it be scary HF? Sizewell has had a Nuclear Power station there since the early 60s. Nuclear power makes up roughly 20% of our current electricity demand in the UK and there has been Nuclear Generation in our shores since the late 50s. Also, France have many more Nuclear Power stations than we do in the UK
Huge issues with infrastructure that's such a short time frame to turn it around in. Doesn't seem realistic at all.
Couldn't find the article but found this in the Grauniad from over a year ago. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-tax-on-road-usage-to-cover-lost-fuel-revenue
Simple mate.(eg Chernoby). Still a massive danger. For me. Expensive to Build. Despite being relatively inexpensive to operate, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build—and the cost keeps rising. ... Accidents. ... Produces Radioactive Waste. ... Impact on the Environment. ... Security Threat. ... Limited Fuel Supply. Didn’t copy the article in full . But that’s the gist.
Before working on CO2 extraction my son worked on Flow Cells. These are effectively reversible batteries whereby you pump chemical A through the cell and get chemical B and electricity. If you then pump chemical B through the cell and apply electricity you get chemical A back. These are used in power stations to balance the output (short term power storage) using chemicals dissolved in water (aqueous) and they are pretty inefficient. My son was looking at miniaturising the cells and using non-aqueous chemistry in the hope of making them highly efficient. If that could be made to work and the chemicals were easily produced, cars would fill up with A and empty out their B at a fuel station whilst the fuel stations would use the National Grid to convert B back to A. Simple.
You missed out the clincher, they are Massively expensive to de-commission. Sorry I went a bit Wedneseh there.
We've had Nuclear power in the UK for 60 years though, and over 50 years at Sizewell. You can't have all renewable energy forms and we need power stations to provide the "baseload" of the UK demand, as simply put - what do we do when the wind doesn't blow to provide the wind energy? We also need the power stations bigger generators to provide the inertia of the Power Grid to keep it stable at low demand periods. We all know we aren't going to be building coal or gas fired power stations don't we?
Also the Japanese power station which was destroyed by a big wave. And still spewing out contamination.
What we need is power storage capacity so that wind and solar can do the job on their own. I know that's probably a long way off but it's a much better thing to be working towards rather than building expensive new nuclear stations that never actually pay for themselves due to decommissioning costs etc.
It’s all academic. I can’t see us being allowed to travel freely by then assuming the current trend continues.
2030 is not remotely viable...where I live probably a third of the houses are terraces, it's not possible to guarantee parking anywhere near your own property never mind on the charging point, added to the fact that a lot of families now have more than one car, just from a practical point of view I can't see how it can work.