Aerodynamic Rocket Nozzle Tech Could Be Repurposed to Efficiently Capture CO2

Should work. Good idea

Pretty straightforward, simple. Gotta like it. If they can separate it from the pork earmark that is likely paying for it. Cities won't trust the idea enough to buy them otherwise.

Thats good ruin the efficiency of the power plant by making it use its energy to force its exhaust out, so we can burn more fuels to get the same output and net the same exhaust. Good God, doesnt anyone think anymore.

friedguy is right. It's going to take energy to compress the exhaust gasses and force them through the nozzle. That energy has to come from somewhere. The question is how much energy will it take and what will it cost?

"Those chemicals make up a large part of the expense of scrubbing carbon dioxide form emissions -- a full 80 percent of the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity produced at a coal plant, ATK's vice president tells Discovery News. A rocket nozzle approach could reduce that to more like 30 percent."

Lets say electricity costs $0.20 per KW/h. Lets figure that they target 10% profit, so their cost is $0.18

Per the article, 80% of that goes to scrubbing CO2, meaning that the chemical process would then be about $0.14 -- so when you pay your twenty cents, $0.14 of that is just what YOU are paying to clean out some CO2.

Again, per the article, the new cost would be 30%*, so keeping profit at 10% would mean a consumer price of $0.057; 29% of the 'current' price.

*I'm assume that is the total cost INCLUDING the energy to drive the system...???, just as I'd presume the 80% includes the cost of the chemicals plus pumps and what-not that put them where they need to be].

Even if My assumption is wrong- even if for every KW/h produced they had to 'waste' a KW/h worth of electricity driving the system, they could still offer electricty at greatly reduced rates [or more likely, make alot more money].

Further-- the byproduct appears to be a useful product. Invest some money in some processing and shipping equipment and they could sell the dry ice-- hell, I'm sure some of the big users of dry ice would come in and haul it away themselves!

that 80% number is grossly inaccurate

Do you use a battery? Then you are "wasting energy" according to a few people here. We pay for the convenience and the versatility obtained by making energy portable. Better than living next to a power plant or lugging extension cords everywhere in my opinion.

I'm going to...sheepishly withdraw my comment. Thought I was on another board, excuse me >.<

@friedguy
Whether or not the 80% quote for cost is accurate, the chemicals used to scrub CO2 have to been made, transported, disposed of etc. using energy (most likely from sources that emit CO2 as well) which indirectly reduces the power plants efficiency. This non-chemical method still reduces the efficiency but I doubt, if this actually works, that it will be worse than the current method we use. I mean I'm pretty sure the people behind this idea thought of this stuff and made sure overall its more efficient (or could be in theory) so its sort of funny you're the one complaining about people not thinking seeing how you just began jumping to conclusions without even thinking of slightly indirect effects.