Best technology for coal electricity capture costs $10/watt (close to new on budget nuclear plants), and only captures 65% of emissions. A better “free” climate strategy would be to put them in “backup peaker” mode for renewables and run them at far less than 35% of year.

DAC can work only if price of carbon is $300/ton ($3/gallon gasoline). Still, 100% renewables is cheapest path to avoiding those taxes, but afterwards, DAC can hope to pay for itself.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s only path to 100% renewables.

    That’s nonsense. Hydrogen is just another engery storage technology, and an inefficient one.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      55 minutes ago

      Batteries are more efficient, and charge/discharge comes from same device, at a very high power rate. But $100/kwh or even $50/kwh storage cost is higher than $1/kwh cost of H2. H2 being transportable and siteable anywhere with water/electricity access, makes it much more useful than alternate storage technologies.

      The battery problem is that it will be sized too big to charge or discharge on some alternate days, and too small to fully meet energy needs on others. The high storage costs mean an economic requirement to have at least/close to full daily charge/discharge cycles.

      The sellable/transportable property of H2 means producing an unlimited amount in one place, and distributing it as needed. H2 has many different applications than fuel/electricity conversion as well. If we ever make too much, we can shoot stuff into space with it.