Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

it would be good if it didn't take 10 years to bring a reactor on-line

As part of a marathon research effort to lower the cost of carbon capture, chemists have now demonstrated a method to seize carbon dioxide (CO2) that reduces costs by 19 percent compared to current commercial technology. The new technology requires 17 percent less energy to accomplish the same task as its commercial counterparts, surpassing barriers that have kept other forms of carbon capture from widespread industrial use. And it can be easily applied in existing capture systems.


In a study published in the March 2021 edition of International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory—along with collaborators from Fluor Corp. and the Electric Power Research Institute—describe properties of the solvent, known as EEMPA, that allow it to sidestep the energetically expensive demands incurred by traditional solvents.

"EEMPA has some promising qualities," said chemical engineer Yuan Jiang, lead author of the study. "It can capture carbon dioxide without high water content, so it's water-lean, and it's much less viscous than other water-lean solvents."


https://phys.org/news/2021-03-cheaper-carbon-capture.html

We rarely get rain or snow, but right now we are getting a mix of the two. 

IF "we" were really serious about CC, we'd be down with nuclear as the only way to generate base load in high figures fairly quickly by replacing coal.

The growth in wind and solar MIGHT compensate for increased demand, maybe, but it's not base load.  And that still leaves us with coal and NG.

Just in time for their first ever home football game in the D1 era. 


https://twitter.com/DixieState_FB/status/1370792126766718978?s=20

Football weather from the football gods. 

Road to Climate Neutrality | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

The study includes a case study done for two EU member states: The Netherlands, a country along the North Sea with abundant wind, and the Czech Republic, a landlocked country with no access to sea and a geographical more challenging landscape. In realistic scenarios, there is not enough land to meet all power demand if the Czech Republic and The Netherlands were to rely solely or predominantly on wind and solar power.
The study, initiated by Dutch MEP Rob Roos and Czech MEP Ondřej Knotek and peer-reviewed in part by, among other respected scientists, Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus, finds that nuclear energy is also more cost-effective than renewables. Even if taken into account major efficiency improvements in solar and wind farms, nuclear energy will remain the cheaper option in 2050. In this comparison, the enormous costs for adapting the electricity grid, such as connecting wind turbines at sea or solar parks on land, are not even included. That price tag is also invariably lower for nuclear energy.
“We found it remarkable that – in transitioning away from fossil fuels – the EU made a policy decision in favour of renewable energy without considering the relative pros and cons of all carbon-neutral technologies”, both MEPs stated.
Mr Roos: “Nuclear energy is always available, cheaper and saves the landscape. Moreover, further research into, for example, the thorium molten salt reactor offers enormous opportunities for our export position. Let’s invest our tax money in that. ”

Reality starting to seep in ....

Tell me again why we should  spend trillions to decarbonize our economy?

because it's the right thing to do, regardless of cost and effectiveness