> Currently, you wouldn't want to dedicate a nuclear plant to removing
> CO2 from the air, you'd produce electricity and displace coal
> generation. As long as nuclear is cheaper than coal, that even gives a
> negative cost per tonne of CO2 avoided/removed.
Can I just chip in with the observation that CO2 removal might be
accomplished rather more economically by using biological plants than
nuclear ones?
One could envisage a tree being bioengineered to grow fast, sequester
carbon in a (relatively) stable form (dense enough to sink), and to
reproduce quickly. Add a "switch" so that they can be turned off if
they get too invasive, and then harvest and dump them in oceanic
subduction zones. Certain algae might also be suitable candidates...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
