$60/MWh for advanced nuclear electricity is achievable: GE Hitachi Executive

Re:$60/MWh for advanced nuclear electricity is achievable: G... by elevaet on Monday April 03, 2023 @10:37PM (#35434263)

Standing forests are perpetual carbon storage. At some point a given area of forest reaches maturity/stability and the rate of tree decay is more or less matched by the rate of tree growth. Once in a while the forest burns down, grows back and reaches maturity again, and once again becomes stored carbon. On average, an area of land that is forest will be carbon storage (as well as wildlife habitat etc).

Trees are great: solar-powered, recursive, self-assembling, carbon sequestration tech.

Forests can't be the only solution to carbon, because of the scale of emissions, but they can be a fraction of the solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$60/MWh for advanced nuclear electricity is achievable: G... by Dylan16807 on Monday April 03, 2023 @11:14PM (#35434526)

You're describing temporary storage. That's very different from sequestration. If you don't do something like bury charcoal, it's more or less irrelevant to trying to drain a continuing large supply of carbon.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$60/MWh for advanced nuclear electricity is achievable: G... by throwaway2037 on Monday April 03, 2023 @11:31PM (#35434682)

I agree with your reply. As long as the amount of stored carbon by the forest increases, it is a valid form of carbon sequestration, and, IMHO, the most beautiful.

Regarding other methods, people should Google for: norway carbon sequestration. Note: The volumes are very limited -- not enough to burn coal as your primary energy source, then capture all the CO2 and pump it underground.

To be clear, I am not shilling for non-forest/peat based carbon sequestration. To me, it is mostly a green washing game by big oil, gas, and utility firms to delay action and avoid responsibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]