Part of what makes the CO2 capture feasible is it is being captured at the site it is produced, specifically in the making of cement. If the cement is made in Norway then it is likely to have cured and be worthless in the shipping to where it is needed. So something would still be shipped, it is that it is more convenient to ship the CO2 than then cement.

If this were some system that extracted the CO2 from the air then maybe you'd have a point but that is not the case.

Not just a sunshine law but also a large population, with more people there's just a greater chance of wild things to happen. Given any other population of 23 million or so people there would be plenty of wild stuff going on every year. Oh, and the mild weather helps, more people out and about to enjoy the weather and interact with each other.

The intent I got from this is the technology is to better match the intermittent nature of wind and solar power to the demands of the grid, which is also a helpful technology in matching the steady state nature of large thermal power plants to the demands of the grid. This works both ways.

But then if there's something that gets really hot like a fusion reactor then there's options for varied means of thermal energy storage. There was a hint of the potential for thermal energy storage that went with the mention of concentrated solar power. I expect nuclear fusion to continue to be vaporware for many more decades, if it ever becomes a reality while anyone alive at the time I write this is still around to see it happen. What is the problem that fusion is supposed to solve that fission doesn't already provide? I read an article just a few days ago on how there were plans to use nuclear fission reactors to produce the rare fuel needed for fusion power. Okay, maybe we can use fusion as a means to get the most of the byproducts of nuclear fission, it's not likely to replace nuclear fission for energy production any time soon.

If we have some combined fission and fusion power plant producing energy for us then there's much simpler thermal energy storage systems to match the supply to the demand than using liquid CO2. I'm pleased to see more discussion on solutions than complaints about the problems and how something needs to be done. At least this way I'm seeing people recognize the problems and working on solutions. I'm not seeing this liquid CO2 system as all that practical.

It's great to see an energy storage system built for long term energy storage but their definition of "long term" is 8 to 24 hours. To mitigate against wind and solar power variability we'd need storage that can last many days, perhaps weeks, or even months so the sun collected in the summer can be used for heat the next winter. We can do that with pumped hydro. We can do that with nuclear fission as the fuel is a long term energy storage system.

I'm expecting future energy storage to look a lot like past energy storage. We will have hydroelectric dams to store up water for use to spin a turbine as needed. As we search for alternatives to fossil fuels for hydrocarbons I expect long term energy storage to be large tanks of synthesized analogs to natural gas, LPG, fuel oil, and the various liquid hydrocarbon blends we use for transportation. We could use solar power in the summer to synthesize methane which is then burned in the winter for heat.

If we do somehow get to 24/7 fusion energy to dominate the energy supplies then any storage is likely to be thermal as it is well understood, very simple and cheap to construct, and doesn't involve pressurized domes of suffocating gases that could break and kill people. That is assuming the local geography and climate somehow rules out the option of pumped hydro storage.

Then we will just have to make more.

Is this a closed loop system do they intend to extract CO2 from the air and then release it back to the air with every cycle?

If this extracts CO2 from the air with each cycle then there is a loss in energy in taking that CO2 from the air. I recall a video showing the process of producing liquid nitrogen and the first two steps were the extraction of water vapor then the step of removing CO2. There's more than one way to get the CO2 from the air but the process I saw sounds like much the same as with this energy storage as the goal was a liquid gas, compress the air until what you want falls out. The step to compress the air until the water falls out is lost energy, perhaps there's another process that somehow recovers some of the energy lost in the water extraction but that just minimizes the loss some.

Once the CO2 is liquid there's likely more energy lost in the heat produced from compression. If they are storing the CO2 for hours at a time in a big dome then they will have to build this to be quite heavy or allow for lower pressures by allowing the CO2 to cool.

I've seen plans to liquefy air before as a means to store energy. A recurring issue is that of heat. Compressing gases will heat them up, and releasing compressed gases will cool them down, it's a basic phenomenon behind refrigeration. When releasing this liquefied CO2 into the air, or some lower pressure vessel if a closed loop, the some of the liquid CO2 would likely solidify and fall as "dry snow" unless heated somehow.

I have a lot of questions. Where they will find enough CO2 isn't really among them. I have some expectations on where they will get the CO2, and it's not likely to be all that "green" of a source. The CO2 source will likely also serve as a heat source to keep the CO2 from freezing solid and plugging up the pipes.

We've seen nuclear power plants built in three years.
https://scienceforsustainabili...

If the Trump administration wants to get power plants and data centers online before the end of the term in office then it's possible. Perhaps unlikely, but possible as it's been done before.

The claim of it taking 20 years to complete a nuclear power plant is losing its edge with every year that we see nuclear power plants come online around the world. Even the troubled Hinkley Point C plant is expected to be putting power to the grid after 18 years of construction. The plant at Sizewell C is expected to take 12 years. If the UK can keep their poop in a group then I expect they will meet that deadline. Then is China showing that nuclear power plants can go from breaking ground to power on the grid in seven years.

Small modular reactors that don't require large forged parts, built on federal land where it is insulated from interference by state governments, and people motivated in the government and private industry to see completion, can do a lot to keep everyone on schedule. The link I gave above pointed to matters of policy and public opinion causing increased construction times, not any technical limits. Remove these policy and opinion barriers and nuclear power plant construction can stay on schedule.

I'd expect that when the AI bubble bursts there would be a reduction in electricity production, and the first to the chopping block would be the low profit coal power plants. Any new nuclear power that comes from this means low CO2 energy, and electricity production that is more reliable than coal.

Where's the downside in this? The taxpayer being stuck with the bill? If I'm reading this correctly the primary funding is from private corporations seeking reliable electricity production. Maybe they collapse as AI data centers but they can shift to other services, or even sell off the electricity production to other energy consumers. This has happened before, I can recall contracts for electricity being sold off at a profit to a third party because an aluminum refinery or something found there was more profit in selling electricity contracts than producing aluminum.

There's enough growth in energy demand that I don't see a problem here.

We get a vote on federal energy policy every two years. The people are still in control here.

Do you have a better system in mind? I'd like to learn what others have in mind. I'd also like to know when "cooperation" turns into "collusion". Collusion implies something done in secret but this is out in the open. I don't follow where mention of bitcoin comes in since that wasn't mentioned anywhere that I could see but in the ravings of randos on the internet. Mention of a need for public ownership and communism leads me to believe this is a call for the USA to become a communist nation. Maybe I'm not picking up what you are putting down, but I'm not liking where you are going. I don't see a problem, and that is largely because we still have a vote. The people voted for this, and if you don't like it then get people to vote differently next time.

I understand that, but without a means to sustain an economy the end result is much the same, then end of human civilization as we know it.

But they will have a return in other ways. Ways that could be measured in a financial return. There's no financial gain in me buying a movie ticket but I'd still buy that ticket since it means I'd be entertained for a couple hours. The theaters can measure this return on enjoyment in ticket profits.

There's nothing wrong with the internal combustion engine. The problem lies with the fuels we use. Bans on the ICE means removing many options for carbon neutral and sustainable fuels. Those looking to ban the ICE are people with myopia or some agenda.

We could... but in any kind of democracy that would be difficult. People aren't going to vote themselves into rationing energy, not unless facing a clear and immediate danger like that seen in World War Part Two. People can certainly be convinced to use alternatives to fossil fuels if presented with something that offered lower costs, or perhaps some other benefit that makes the higher cost worthwhile.

Precisely. So with that realization why fight a battle that you know you cannot win?

I believe that we can reach lower CO2 emissions, see profits from it, and that it will happen once some basic lessons are learned. People need to learn that nuclear power is safe, isn't a path to nuclear war, can be profitable, will lower CO2 emissions, can free us from getting tangled in resource wars in far off places, and more.

If you want to see lower CO2 emissions, and therefore avoid environmental ruin, then demand more nuclear power. If for some reason you oppose use of nuclear power then you are asking for the impossible. You know people won't just volunteer to enter poverty and scarcity, it would have to be imposed on them by some outside threat or a tyrannical government. If we rule out some tyranny then what is left is either nuclear power or a continuation of burning fossil fuels. If there is some other option in the future if only we develop a new technology then we must still choose fossil fuels or nuclear fission to fill in where renewable energy sources are insufficient until that new technology comes.

I'm seeing nations all over the world come to realize that there's a national security issue in leaving so much of their economy reliant on imported fossil fuels. If there is a concern on CO2 emissions then that is second to maintaining their access to energy. It just happens that the solution to both problems can be found in nuclear fission. There's no technology that can replace coal and natural gas for reliable electricity production like nuclear fission can. In theory there may be an option for wind, solar, and batteries to replace fossil fuels but that is using technologies that require far more resources, and have a lower return on investment, than nuclear fission so it's nuclear fission or fossil fuels until there's some new technology to provide another option.

I don't know what you want, and I'm getting the impression you don't know what you want. I want more nuclear power as that means lower CO2 emission, more energy independence, less leverage from outside to get sucked into resource wars, cleaner air, cleaner water, greater safety, likely lower energy costs, and more. I can see the path out of this dilemma. Those that don't see the path are likely being lied to on what options we have before us today.

There was an article showing that on Slashdot just last month. Are people's memories so short?
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

That's great but this is about a new battery with a different chemistry, and with that comes new questions on fire safety. If you want to argue that not all BEVs carry the same fire hazard then that's fine, just don't use that to claim some new chemistry must be safer. We don't know what these new batteries would do in a fire. It's likely we will find out any time soon either. And when we do find out that could mean another ship, and possibly lives, lost at sea.

I didn't watch the entire video but I believe I got the idea on what was tested from the intro. The testing was on what would happen if there was damage to the batteries, which is a fair test because I would hope no battery would start on fire unless it experiences physical damage. Further, the concern is on battery safety while parked, such as in someone's garage or on a cargo ship. If there was unseen damage prior to being parked and it simply took some time to end up as a fire then there's a concern on how that fire behaves, such as if there a flame shooting out of some hole punched into the casing.

Attacking the battery with a power drill does seem to me to be a reasonable analog to seeing damage from a collision while driving, or seeing the vehicle exposed to damage from falling debris in an earthquake, or perhaps something like damage from a fire outside of the vehicle though I'll conceded that there's room to argue otherwise.

Nobody doubts that water will extinguish an EV battery fire, with enough water the fire will go out or at least have the fire contained to that battery until it burns out on its own. The issue is that with such a large battery it can take more water than existing fire suppression systems can provide. This can be a greater problem as in an EV the fire can build up considerable heat before being detected as it will be a bit buried in the vehicle, which is understandable for protection against collisions, and there may not be obvious fumes or smoke like with burning engine oil, tires, or most hydrocarbon fuels.

I got my prior comment marked as trolling for pointing out a concern among shipping companies on moving EVs. It would appear an "inconvenient truth" is considered trolling here. Is anyone claiming this is concern has no basis in fact? It would seem that seeing several EV fires causing considerable damage to ships carrying them, including total loss of the ship, should be cause for concern. Maybe this can be traced to a single battery chemistry, where LFP is safe but NMC is not. Okay then, if the plan is to move to a third kind of battery chemistry then there is still cause for concern until there's been some testing and real world experience to show this new chemistry isn't creating the same hazard, or some new hazard. Part of what makes LFP safer than NMC is the lower energy density, and with a new battery chemistry with a higher energy density than NMC then that should raise all kinds of alarms. For all we know the batteries won't burn, instead they explode. I doubt that is the case but it is within the realm of possibility.

The batteries we produce today have an energy density on par with ammonia nitrate, and there's been instances of ammonia nitrate causing damage in shipping. There's reason to have concerns on any new batteries with a higher energy density until there's been testing to demonstrate the safety of these batteries. Like ammonia nitrate a battery doesn't need air to undergo a chemical reaction that produces heat. That heat can set other things on fire, such as the battery casing wire insulation, and so on. Depending on the chemistry of the battery the battery could provide oxidation for feeding the flames fueled by other materials. There's many unknowns here, and until they are worked out there's clear evidence of concern over EV battery fires.

If we don't limit the alternatives to fossil fuels to those that provide a financial return then that is the path to economic ruin.

The term "sustainable energy" gets tossed around a lot, and part of being sustainable is getting more out than we put in. If there's no return on that investment then it cannot be sustained. We can do experimentation on new energy sources while not expecting an immediate return but we do so only in the belief and hope that there's a return later on. At some point such experimentation needs to end, or at least be paused for some new technology or such to catch up, or it's a waste of resources.

If there's no money in alternative energy then it cannot be sustained.

This is like seeing carbon taxes used to prop up the wind and solar industry only to later realize that is only creating a new level of dependence on fossil fuels. Without the tax revenue on fossil fuels to prop up an industry that cannot produce a profit will only create new advocates for fossil fuels from those in the wind and solar industry.

That's not me claiming that wind and solar power cannot make a profit, only pointing out that if there is no profit in wind and solar power then propping those industries up with subsidies or such will only make things worse. It discourages seeking out other energy sources by the economic and regulatory barriers that are inherent to such subsidies.

What is it with you and Patrick Moore? Has anyone seen him speak publicly or write anything in the last five years? By all appearances he's retired. I tried to bring up his website to see if he's published anything recently but the site appears to be down, another sign he's no longer making any public statements.

How does someone point to the bullshit of "denialist tropes" without mention of the trope being called out? Calling the problem "climate change" is going to reflexively bring up that the climate is always changing. Then will come the people pointing to their experience on the weather during their life on how the weather varies from year to year, using that as evidence of constant change.

The "denialist trope" is use of the term "climate change". The term "climate change" came from the deniers, and using the term to argue for action is feeding the denial. I don't want to feed the denial so I use "global warming" as that is the more accurate description of the problem, the problem is warming from human activity not that the climate changes because the climate is always changing.

I don't like "climate crisis" either because that feeds into the denial, people can deny there is a crisis by looking around and seeing that the world isn't burning. Things aren't perfect but also not a crisis. So I'm not going to use hyperbolic claims of a crisis to get people to act.

With allies like these in the fight against global warming who needs enemies?

You have that backwards, the refineries in the USA were built for the sour crude so they buy the cheaper sour crude from overseas while letting the domestic sweet crude get exported overseas.

https://www.fuelstreamservices...

In spite of the title on the article the USA can refine the oil it produces it is that the refineries choose not to over economic reasons.

What is a "fair share"? That's such a subjective statement that there's no way to prove it either way. If anyone believes there is an objective means to determine "fair share" then I'd like to see an argument to defend the claim that the "capital class" (another subjective measure) hasn't paid their "fair share" in taxes. To get to "fair share" in taxes we'd need an objective measure for "capital class". My guess is the "capital class" would be relative, as in who has more capital than some average or such than an absolute value on how much capital they have as measured in some commodity like gold or oil than a fiat currency.

What could possibly be a less subjective measure on "fair share" is how many ships benefit from lower cost registrations under a "flag of convenience" than pay the higher rates in the USA, they will still see benefits of the funding of the US Navy to patrol dangerous waters but provide little to no funds to the US Navy themselves.

That's great but the EV market is much larger than you.

I get your point, and I can be convinced to agree if shown polliing or such to back that up.

Whatever the miles per charge for any EV there's the potential to not have 600 miles of range but instead less mass and cost for the EV. That means sportier performance, less tire wear, and potentially other advantages.

Military deployments out of the USA to the Persian Gulf was not about guaranteeing supply. The USA produces plenty of crude oil and so there could be benefits to the USA in not running to the Persian Gulf to provide military assistance to allies. If European allies can't bring in crude from the Middle East because of some war breaking out or whatever then by Americans not running to the Persian Gulf there's a larger market for crude out of the USA.

I can imagine some doubts on this helping out the USA since if there's crude leaving the USA then that can mean higher prices in the USA. That can happen but with the higher price and taxes based on some percentage, then it is in the interests of some people in the federal government to keep our own military on our side of the Atlantic ocean so the tax income increases. Some other politicians will send military forces to the region out of some implicit or explicit obligation to provide aid to our allies.

Those that add military expenses to the oil and gas subsidies is doing so only to deceive. If it follows to include such expenses as a subsidy or fossil fuels then we need to include some of the Coast Guard and Navy budget to other energy sources because there's pirates and other threats that need addressing for bringing in raw materials or parts for alternative energy sources. There's a large number of Navy sailors keeping the shipping lanes open due to recent events. We'd not have to spend that money if we had our own mines and refineries for commodities like lithium and rare earth metals.