On 04/12/2018 16:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:06:27 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Has anyone looked into the feasibility of short term energy storage by
reducing carbon dioxide in some sort of electric furnace and storing the
resulting hydrocarbons (to drive standard gas turbines when needed)? I
expect it would be important *not* to store any oxygen produced in the
same tank as the hydrocarbons, but the only barrier I can see is finding
some sort of catalyst to make the reduction reasonably efficient.

Take your pick: https://tinyurl.com/y9jwqgto All you need is loads of
energy.

Ok, so it has been looked at. Still not better than a forest. I do
wonder if, after all possible battery processes have been considered,
some more indirect chemical change could be used for electricity storage
in the hours to weeks range. But, like fusion, it is clear that it
does not exist at the moment, and nuclear is the only option.

If you believe the climate alarmism crap yes. Nuclear is the most cost
effective way to reduce power statiuon emissions

Years ago a study was doimne on the cost benefitr of may menas of
carbon reduction. Insulation. HEbulbs. nuclear power.

Insulation paid for itself. So did HE bulbs. Nuclear was cost neutral
and renewables were fiendishly expensive.

Ive got a copy somewhere

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/cocu07.pdf

2007 that was written.

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.