3 ms·
The research and tech actually exists for large scale nuclear power. It's essentially a solved problem, unlike large-scale energy storage.
by tpmx 4y ago
The research and tech actually exists for large scale nuclear power. It's essentially a solved problem, unlike large-scale energy storage.
- adrianN 4y agoWe can always create methane or ammonia from hydrogen. That's a solved problem. The only research left to do is to bring down the price.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoYou can do hydrogen, but ammonia production is like 16% efficient?
- adrianN 4y agoEfficiency is less important than cost. Maybe ammonia is so much easier to transport and store that it's worth the efficiency penalty.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf I have this right, Ammonia is 2x more expensive than petrol per tonne, and has half the energy density of petrol, so it seems to be 4x more expensive? I am not sure how to compare with hydrogen, as you say costs for it are in storage and transportation
- tpmx 4y agoI.e. the "only" remaining problem is to do it at large scale at a reasonable cost.
- adrianN 4y agoRight now there is little demand for storage because we don't have sufficient renewable generation capacity. It is no surprise that storage technology hasn't been deployed at large scale and is still relatively expensive. But since we know how to build MW scale electrolyzers it's really just a matter of building more of them.
- mqus 4y agoBut if we look at actual nuclear projects in finland and france, they are expensive and mostly failing and take far too long (think decades, not years). End storage of fuel rods is also not a solved problem of nuclear power, esp. in germany. So I would rather take the fast-to-build solar and wind plants and research "large scale" energy storage alongside. Storage also does not have to be large-scale, you can just subsidise a lot of decentralized storage and invest in more flexible energy consumers (aka wash your clothes when the sun is shining).