3 ms·

Hydrogen is an energy storage and transport mechanism. Comparing it against nuclear is like comparing apples and baskets and makes no sense. It compliments nuc

Hydrogen is an energy storage and transport mechanism. Comparing it against nuclear is like comparing apples and baskets and makes no sense. It compliments nuclear reasonably well, because the cost of peak capacity for nuclear is completely off the charts. Cost for baseload is merely very high, so storage is important for nuclear. Especially given nuclear's increasing unreliability due to being over-centralised and sensitive to weather as we are seeing in france and china right now. Hydrogen has a major advantage over batteries in that very large scale storage is much cheaper (if your tank is big enough to keep at cryo temperatures it's even reasonably compact). It's much worse than ither fuels in this regard, but the better efficiency of production makes it a good candidate for some things.

erik_seaberg 4y ago
The other advantage of hydrogen is that a driver can go get one and swap it quickly; no need for a dedicated parking space with electrical service added.
panick21_ 4y ago
Well you can actually compare apple to baskets. So when you are going into a shop and you have certain amount of money you can decide to invest into apples or a basket. You get what I am talking about? It also didn't make sense that Japan talked about hydorgen in terms of energy independence. But they did. > It compliments nuclear reasonably well, because the cost of peak capacity for nuclear is completely off the charts. If you actually invested in enough nuclear and build modern plants that can load follow way better then this isn't big problem. It would only make sense if building storage over added capacity was way, way cheaper, and I not sure it actually is once you are pumping out lots of nuclear. Even then, you would likely go for heat storage, not chemical storage if you are paring it with nuclear. > Especially given nuclear's increasing unreliability due to being over-centralised and sensitive to weather as we are seeing in france and china right now. Again this is mostly a problem if you have not built enough and every plant need to be on at all times. In addition modern nuclear plants can be air cooled and should be way less sensitive. So again with nuclear, the main problem is that we are building 60s technology that was designed for submarines.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > It also didn't make sense that Japan talked about hydorgen in terms of energy independence. But they did. In a world where net energy is as easy as throwing up a solar panel, energy reserves are energy independence. Nuclear doesn't help here at all because Japan is not allowed to make fuel. Nuclear is dependence on one of the handful of countries who are. Also it doesn't solve portability at all -- my money is on something like sodium ion, but a cheap compact hydrogen canister solves the problem too if it doesn't use exotic materials. > If you actually invested in enough nuclear and build modern plants that can load follow way better then this isn't big problem. > It would only make sense if building storage over added capacity was way, way cheaper, and I not sure it actually is once you are pumping out lots of nuclear. Nuclear capacity is the most expensive thing you can build. Building it to not use it is even stupider than building it to use it. Cheap long term storage is the only thing keeping niches that aren't solar + wind from disappearing entirely -- even with fossil fuels and nuclear being massively subsidized. Renewables are at the point now where building a heat exchanger and steam turbine is a commensurable cost even if the input heat came from fairy farts. This is why fossil fuel plants that don't have a primary turbine need subsidies to stay alive even if they were to get fuel for free. > In addition modern nuclear plants can be air cooled and should be way less sensitive. So making the thing that is limited by being too expensive and unable to run in hot weather more expensive and less efficient in hot weather is a step up?
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > Nuclear doesn't help here at all because Japan is not allowed to make fuel. Allowed to make fuel? Who is gone stop them? > Nuclear is dependence on one of the handful of countries who are. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. > Also it doesn't solve portability at all -- my money is on something like sodium ion, but a cheap compact hydrogen canister solves the problem too if it doesn't use exotic materials. Portability. Energy generation is best done mostly locally. For portability you have simply connect each local area with the one next to it and you dynamically shift north or south in Japan. But for the most part demand is predictable enough for this not to be needed, and beyond that you can use price mechanisms and other things as well. Just put 1 reactor down for each X people and its totally fine. > Nuclear capacity is the most expensive thing you can build. Given that there is very, very little storage on the global grid and lots of nuclear its not clear this is true. And you assume that nuclear must always cost some huge amount, but if you are a country that is mass producing nuclear reactors (specially modern ones) at large scale, its not actually true. Marginal cost per reactors goes down quite a bit even with PWR and if you would build modern GenIV reactor its even less true. > Cheap long term storage is the only thing keeping niches that aren't solar + wind from disappearing entirely The reliance on the grid to balance out solar + wind unreliability was always a hidden subsidy in most countries. And you act as if 'cheap long term storage' and 'only' should be in the same sentence. Not sure what you mean with 'long term' here, do you mean 6hours or 6 month? If its less then a few month, I wouldn't want to live with it. A single major even such as a volcano could have a major impact when you relay on a storage. > So making the thing that is limited by being too expensive and unable to run in hot weather more expensive and less efficient in hot weather is a step up? You clearly don't understand how air cooled nuclear works.

erik_seaberg 4y ago

The other advantage of hydrogen is that a driver can go get one and swap it quickly; no need for a dedicated parking space with electrical service added.

panick21_ 4y ago

Well you can actually compare apple to baskets. So when you are going into a shop and you have certain amount of money you can decide to invest into apples or a basket. You get what I am talking about? It also didn't make sense that Japan talked about hydorgen in terms of energy independence. But they did. > It compliments nuclear reasonably well, because the cost of peak capacity for nuclear is completely off the charts. If you actually invested in enough nuclear and build modern plants that can load follow way better then this isn't big problem. It would only make sense if building storage over added capacity was way, way cheaper, and I not sure it actually is once you are pumping out lots of nuclear. Even then, you would likely go for heat storage, not chemical storage if you are paring it with nuclear. > Especially given nuclear's increasing unreliability due to being over-centralised and sensitive to weather as we are seeing in france and china right now. Again this is mostly a problem if you have not built enough and every plant need to be on at all times. In addition modern nuclear plants can be air cooled and should be way less sensitive. So again with nuclear, the main problem is that we are building 60s technology that was designed for submarines.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> It also didn't make sense that Japan talked about hydorgen in terms of energy independence. But they did. In a world where net energy is as easy as throwing up a solar panel, energy reserves are energy independence. Nuclear doesn't help here at all because Japan is not allowed to make fuel. Nuclear is dependence on one of the handful of countries who are. Also it doesn't solve portability at all -- my money is on something like sodium ion, but a cheap compact hydrogen canister solves the problem too if it doesn't use exotic materials. > If you actually invested in enough nuclear and build modern plants that can load follow way better then this isn't big problem. > It would only make sense if building storage over added capacity was way, way cheaper, and I not sure it actually is once you are pumping out lots of nuclear. Nuclear capacity is the most expensive thing you can build. Building it to not use it is even stupider than building it to use it. Cheap long term storage is the only thing keeping niches that aren't solar + wind from disappearing entirely -- even with fossil fuels and nuclear being massively subsidized. Renewables are at the point now where building a heat exchanger and steam turbine is a commensurable cost even if the input heat came from fairy farts. This is why fossil fuel plants that don't have a primary turbine need subsidies to stay alive even if they were to get fuel for free. > In addition modern nuclear plants can be air cooled and should be way less sensitive. So making the thing that is limited by being too expensive and unable to run in hot weather more expensive and less efficient in hot weather is a step up?
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > Nuclear doesn't help here at all because Japan is not allowed to make fuel. Allowed to make fuel? Who is gone stop them? > Nuclear is dependence on one of the handful of countries who are. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. > Also it doesn't solve portability at all -- my money is on something like sodium ion, but a cheap compact hydrogen canister solves the problem too if it doesn't use exotic materials. Portability. Energy generation is best done mostly locally. For portability you have simply connect each local area with the one next to it and you dynamically shift north or south in Japan. But for the most part demand is predictable enough for this not to be needed, and beyond that you can use price mechanisms and other things as well. Just put 1 reactor down for each X people and its totally fine. > Nuclear capacity is the most expensive thing you can build. Given that there is very, very little storage on the global grid and lots of nuclear its not clear this is true. And you assume that nuclear must always cost some huge amount, but if you are a country that is mass producing nuclear reactors (specially modern ones) at large scale, its not actually true. Marginal cost per reactors goes down quite a bit even with PWR and if you would build modern GenIV reactor its even less true. > Cheap long term storage is the only thing keeping niches that aren't solar + wind from disappearing entirely The reliance on the grid to balance out solar + wind unreliability was always a hidden subsidy in most countries. And you act as if 'cheap long term storage' and 'only' should be in the same sentence. Not sure what you mean with 'long term' here, do you mean 6hours or 6 month? If its less then a few month, I wouldn't want to live with it. A single major even such as a volcano could have a major impact when you relay on a storage. > So making the thing that is limited by being too expensive and unable to run in hot weather more expensive and less efficient in hot weather is a step up? You clearly don't understand how air cooled nuclear works.