3 ms·

Solar + hydrogen is just as predictable as nuclear. It costs roughly twice as much (because of 50% loss on electrolysis and back), but ends up providing a stabl

Solar + hydrogen is just as predictable as nuclear. It costs roughly twice as much (because of 50% loss on electrolysis and back), but ends up providing a stable power output independent of weather. It’s conparable in place to nuclear if I’m not mistaken, and it’s fault scenarios are less severe. Especially in US, with vast amounts of deserts, it seems like a no-brainer. (having said that, climate change is so urgent that I’d say do whatever it takes to get to zero emmissions - be it nuclear or solar)

natch 6y ago
In support of your point, I’d add that when doing cost comparisons with nuclear, one has to be wary of the accounting tricks they play such as not factoring in the costs of failure scenarios. Or even end of life decommissioning in some cases.
EricE 6y ago
Except if you are pitching it as a solution for the base load problem - where is anyone doing solar+hydrogen at scale? Where is anyone committing to doing it at scale - let alone in the near future? How do we know it will remain economical at scale? All kinds of fun things can happen between theory/demonstration and implementation in the real world. We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical. That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.
- suster 6y ago
  Do you have an example of a specific scaling problem which applies to solar+hydrogen and probably can't easily be surmounted? Or is your argument just "We're not doing it yet, therefore it can never be done"?
- kolinko 5y ago
  It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. You don’t need one huge plant to manage the baseload when we’re talking about renewables. You can just as well have the same wattage distributed across multiple places in the country, removing a single point of failure and lowering transmission costs (although requiring a redesign of the energy grid).

natch 6y ago

In support of your point, I’d add that when doing cost comparisons with nuclear, one has to be wary of the accounting tricks they play such as not factoring in the costs of failure scenarios. Or even end of life decommissioning in some cases.

EricE 6y ago

Except if you are pitching it as a solution for the base load problem - where is anyone doing solar+hydrogen at scale? Where is anyone committing to doing it at scale - let alone in the near future? How do we know it will remain economical at scale? All kinds of fun things can happen between theory/demonstration and implementation in the real world. We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical. That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.

suster 6y ago
Do you have an example of a specific scaling problem which applies to solar+hydrogen and probably can't easily be surmounted? Or is your argument just "We're not doing it yet, therefore it can never be done"?
kolinko 5y ago
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. You don’t need one huge plant to manage the baseload when we’re talking about renewables. You can just as well have the same wattage distributed across multiple places in the country, removing a single point of failure and lowering transmission costs (although requiring a redesign of the energy grid).