I very much prefer CO2 in my drinks, some other carbon captures get you CO and I've heard that's not as good as a drink carbonator

Good luck building enough capacity in nuclear power to do that. Nuclear plants tend to be a lot more expensive and take a lot longer to build than anticipated.

Solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear now. The main problem is it's not sunny and/or windy every day. A carbon capture system doesn't need to be running 24/7 though.

If we build way more wind/solar than we use then the excess can dumped into things like this.

Sorry but the economics of nuclear just doesn't work for everything.

But then the power generated by those reactors is better used to power things that burn fossil fuel in a less efficient way or to simply replace the fossil fuel powered electricity generators...

Quebec transports its electricity over more than a thousand kilometers, surely distance from nuclear reactors isn't an issue if you build the infrastructure around it.

Yes, it works as a "plan B" (along with many other things).

Don't loose hope. We can still win. Keep pushing for producing less CO2.

There are 3 use cases I've seen.

• Making fossil fuel power stations "clean".

• CO2 recovery for long term storage.

• CO2 for industrial use.

It's no good for the first, due to energy consumption. This is the main use I've seen it talked up for, as something that can be retrofitted to power plants.

It's poor for the second, since the result is a gas (hard to store long term). We would want it as a solid or liquid product, which this doesn't do.

The last has limited requirements. We only need so much CO2.

The only large scale use case I can see for this is as part of a carbon capture system. Capture and then react to solidify the carbon. However, plants are already extremely good at this, and can do it directly from atmospheric air, using sunlight.