3 ms·

Do you have any figures for the hydrogen storage vs nuclear point? I’m not saying you’re wrong but it goes against intuition. Both hydro storage and hydrogen h

Do you have any figures for the hydrogen storage vs nuclear point? I’m not saying you’re wrong but it goes against intuition. Both hydro storage and hydrogen have the same problem: not all locales have elevated valleys or underground caverns. I’ve heard some talk about using natural gas pipelines for hydrogen storage, but that has its own issues.

pydry 3y ago
https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... The LCOE for nuclear power is roughly ~5x that of solar and wind. If you assumed that the capex and running costs to electrolyze and store 1GWh of power in an underground cavern is roughly the same as it takes to produce it, and that it's about 50% efficient when roundtripped then that would make the stored wind and solar roughly 3/5ths of the cost of nuclear power. This still makes it a lot more expensive than peaking with natural gas. Just because hydrogen storage is competitive with nuclear power doesn't mean it's economically competitive in general. Nuclear power is just way more expensive than people assume, and generally won't get built without a lot of really lavish subsidies (e.g. like Hinkley Point C getting paid 3-5x as much for the same kwh of electricity as everybody else).
- kgabis 3y ago
  LCOE doesn't account for storage, grid extension necessary and for the fact that nuclear can work for 100 years but solar panels and wind turbines have to be replaced after 20-30. Also, wind and solar where? Solar and wind vary greatly based on where they're installed, yet everyone throws these values around like a solar panel in Greenland would be as efficient as one in Sahara.
  - pydry 3y ago
    It doesn't account for storage (obviously, I think I was pretty clear that this would increase the price from 1/5th to < 3/5ths) or for grid upgrades but LCOE absolutely does account for the projected lifespan of the generating assets. 100 years is, by the way, ludicrously optimistic for a nuclear power plant lifespan. If we ran nuclear power plants that long past their projected lifespans then quite a few would go kaboom.
    - kgabis 3y ago
      What did you base your storage cost calculation on? LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 years. And 100 years is not ludicrous, 2 units in the US have been approved to work for 80 years, 100 is not far off if properly maintained.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >What did you base your storage cost calculation on? Check the link above. >LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 I can assure you that LCOE does not assume a nuclear power station lasts 20 years. It assumes a normal lifetime - neither too short nor a lifetime that would induce catastrophic risks (e.g. 100 years). I've seen no evidence that standard LCOE models under or overestimate solar/wind/nuclear power lifetimes at different rates and it would be presumptuous to assume that they do without evidence.
        kgabis 3y ago
        Your link doesn't say anything about what you proposed regarding storing energy using hydrogen and how much it's supposed to cost. LCOE assumes that nuclear plants will last for 40 years which is wildly off so yes, it favors renewables. And no, running plants for 100 years would not induce catastrophic risks if you engineer for it.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  That’s a lot of assumptions that don’t look correct. I don’t think you are right about the comparison, nuclear comes out ahead in most locales.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Can you cite a different model that demonstrates this or are you assuming that it comes out ahead simply because it gets built? Coz there is a very good reason why it gets built even when it is not economic.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      No, I asked you for figures and you quoted irrelevant ones. My belief is based on following costs in the energy industry. I’m happy to change my beliefs, but not without good reason.

pydry 3y ago

https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... The LCOE for nuclear power is roughly ~5x that of solar and wind. If you assumed that the capex and running costs to electrolyze and store 1GWh of power in an underground cavern is roughly the same as it takes to produce it, and that it's about 50% efficient when roundtripped then that would make the stored wind and solar roughly 3/5ths of the cost of nuclear power. This still makes it a lot more expensive than peaking with natural gas. Just because hydrogen storage is competitive with nuclear power doesn't mean it's economically competitive in general. Nuclear power is just way more expensive than people assume, and generally won't get built without a lot of really lavish subsidies (e.g. like Hinkley Point C getting paid 3-5x as much for the same kwh of electricity as everybody else).

kgabis 3y ago
LCOE doesn't account for storage, grid extension necessary and for the fact that nuclear can work for 100 years but solar panels and wind turbines have to be replaced after 20-30. Also, wind and solar where? Solar and wind vary greatly based on where they're installed, yet everyone throws these values around like a solar panel in Greenland would be as efficient as one in Sahara.
- pydry 3y ago
  It doesn't account for storage (obviously, I think I was pretty clear that this would increase the price from 1/5th to < 3/5ths) or for grid upgrades but LCOE absolutely does account for the projected lifespan of the generating assets. 100 years is, by the way, ludicrously optimistic for a nuclear power plant lifespan. If we ran nuclear power plants that long past their projected lifespans then quite a few would go kaboom.
  - kgabis 3y ago
    What did you base your storage cost calculation on? LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 years. And 100 years is not ludicrous, 2 units in the US have been approved to work for 80 years, 100 is not far off if properly maintained.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >What did you base your storage cost calculation on? Check the link above. >LCOE doesn't account for nuclear running much longer than 20-40 I can assure you that LCOE does not assume a nuclear power station lasts 20 years. It assumes a normal lifetime - neither too short nor a lifetime that would induce catastrophic risks (e.g. 100 years). I've seen no evidence that standard LCOE models under or overestimate solar/wind/nuclear power lifetimes at different rates and it would be presumptuous to assume that they do without evidence.
      - kgabis 3y ago
        Your link doesn't say anything about what you proposed regarding storing energy using hydrogen and how much it's supposed to cost. LCOE assumes that nuclear plants will last for 40 years which is wildly off so yes, it favors renewables. And no, running plants for 100 years would not induce catastrophic risks if you engineer for it.
brutusborn 3y ago
That’s a lot of assumptions that don’t look correct. I don’t think you are right about the comparison, nuclear comes out ahead in most locales.
- pydry 3y ago
  Can you cite a different model that demonstrates this or are you assuming that it comes out ahead simply because it gets built? Coz there is a very good reason why it gets built even when it is not economic.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    No, I asked you for figures and you quoted irrelevant ones. My belief is based on following costs in the energy industry. I’m happy to change my beliefs, but not without good reason.