https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...te-change-co2/

They have a lot of work to make this practical, but it may be a way to placate environmentalists. I imagine it will be a very energy intensive process and therefore more eyewash than actual carbon neutral.

Unless powered by nuclear energy, which they have an unreasonable aversion to.

Agreed, nuclear power is the answer to many of the challenges we face. Eventually, someone is going to go all in on a version that placates the NIMBY folks.

Underwater installation a hundred miles offshore a hundred foot deep. Subs have been doing it since the 50s. No shortage of coolant water whatsoever.

Certainly pretty bullet-proof from the heat-removal perspective. But far too expensive, and don't forget you'd need underwater distribution lines too. The challenges of operating in that environment would reduce safety margins, and the public might not be happy about a major plant crisis that close to shore, since any released contamination would be detectable wherever the currents go.

Better to use land-based modern-design plants which are inherently safer than post- WW-II systems we mostly use now. Our current core technology was selected not because it was safer or better optimized for power generation, but because it could be used to generate weapons-grade Pu for defense purposes.