3 ms·

Oh I absolutely agree that nuclear is a brilliant choice for hydrogen production. And presumably it would allow nuclear to adjust electricity output whilst mai

by 7952 5y ago

Oh I absolutely agree that nuclear is a brilliant choice for hydrogen production. And presumably it would allow nuclear to adjust electricity output whilst maintaining high utilisation and profitability. But still I think there is a mistake in assuming that everything needs to be tightly coupled. The benefit of an electricity grid and storable fuels is that you have flexibility.

pfdietz 5y ago
How is nuclear a brilliant choice for hydrogen production? Hydrogen provides inherent storage, so energy sources will (aside from cost of electrolysers) be competing based on levelized cost -- and levelized cost of new nuclear sucks. High temperature electrolysis doesn't change this: it reduces the electrical power needed by maybe 25%, at the cost of a nuclear reactor that has to operate at 1000 C with all the material problems that implies (there's a reason LWRs won and HTGC reactors did not.)
- 7952 5y ago
  I don't have the expertise to answer that at a technical level. I think it could be a good choice because it would help balance out intermittent sources like wind and solar. And give alternative revenue streams for nuclear power.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    If it balances out renewables, it also then pushes new nuclear entirely out of the picture.
    - 7952 5y ago
      I don't see why. Currently you would subsidise a nuclear power station because it provides reliable capacity that you may not need. The customer is created artificially by the market. But if you can link nuclear with hydrogen production the customer is not artificial anymore. You could provide guarantees about future hydrogen prices instead and still get the capacity. You then get a product that helps to decarbonise other parts of the economy.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        It pushes out new nuclear because the levelized cost of new nuclear is much higher than the levelized cost of wind/solar. And with highly dispatchable demand, levelized cost is what matters. Why should someone who wants hydrogen buy expensive nuclear electricity when they can use much cheaper renewable electricity?

by 7952 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

How is nuclear a brilliant choice for hydrogen production? Hydrogen provides inherent storage, so energy sources will (aside from cost of electrolysers) be competing based on levelized cost -- and levelized cost of new nuclear sucks. High temperature electrolysis doesn't change this: it reduces the electrical power needed by maybe 25%, at the cost of a nuclear reactor that has to operate at 1000 C with all the material problems that implies (there's a reason LWRs won and HTGC reactors did not.)

7952 5y ago
I don't have the expertise to answer that at a technical level. I think it could be a good choice because it would help balance out intermittent sources like wind and solar. And give alternative revenue streams for nuclear power.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  If it balances out renewables, it also then pushes new nuclear entirely out of the picture.
  - 7952 5y ago
    I don't see why. Currently you would subsidise a nuclear power station because it provides reliable capacity that you may not need. The customer is created artificially by the market. But if you can link nuclear with hydrogen production the customer is not artificial anymore. You could provide guarantees about future hydrogen prices instead and still get the capacity. You then get a product that helps to decarbonise other parts of the economy.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      It pushes out new nuclear because the levelized cost of new nuclear is much higher than the levelized cost of wind/solar. And with highly dispatchable demand, levelized cost is what matters. Why should someone who wants hydrogen buy expensive nuclear electricity when they can use much cheaper renewable electricity?