4 ms·

Thanks for your reply. There's a good response to that plan here[1], the main takeaways being low round-trip efficiency (lose 50-80% of the energy spent in the

Thanks for your reply. There's a good response to that plan here[1], the main takeaways being low round-trip efficiency (lose 50-80% of the energy spent in the process of storing & releasing) and the lack of proven renewable hydrogen generation tech. We should absolutely keep developing this idea and use it in places where it's a good fit. But I'm not willing to bet our future on unproven tech when we have a perfectly good solution right in front of us already working today. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/hydrogen-takes-another-hit/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/hydrogen-takes-another-h...

pfdietz 3y ago
Neither of those is a good argument. The low round trip efficiency doesn't matter much, because hydrogen is mostly there to deal with unusual events (dunkelflauten). Most of the energy still goes either directly from PV/wind to the grid, or through efficient short term storage. Viewed another way: in a storage system, the "cost of inefficiency" is proportional to the number of charge/discharge cycles; for seasonal or rare event backup the number of such cycles is much smaller than for daily storage. Lack of proven renewable hydrogen is an argument that would also rule out nuclear. Nuclear fans are constantly pointing to new, cheaper, more wonderful systems, none of which are proven. Even building reactors more cheaply in the west involves a large leap of faith. What we do know is that electrolyzer prices have been falling rapidly, just like renewable generation and battery storage prices have been falling. They're another technology that has large numbers of similar units and has a strong manufacturing experience effect.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > Lack of proven renewable hydrogen is an argument that would also rule out nuclear. I don't think so. We just built a new plant in Georgia. Minnesota's power grid is already 1/4 nuclear. We've done it before, we can do it again. It would be nice to get costs down, but it's not a requirement. The only thing stopping us is political will and US's general inability to accomplish big things. Hydrogen storage isn't here today (but I hope it will be soon!), nuclear is.

pfdietz 3y ago

Neither of those is a good argument. The low round trip efficiency doesn't matter much, because hydrogen is mostly there to deal with unusual events (dunkelflauten). Most of the energy still goes either directly from PV/wind to the grid, or through efficient short term storage. Viewed another way: in a storage system, the "cost of inefficiency" is proportional to the number of charge/discharge cycles; for seasonal or rare event backup the number of such cycles is much smaller than for daily storage. Lack of proven renewable hydrogen is an argument that would also rule out nuclear. Nuclear fans are constantly pointing to new, cheaper, more wonderful systems, none of which are proven. Even building reactors more cheaply in the west involves a large leap of faith. What we do know is that electrolyzer prices have been falling rapidly, just like renewable generation and battery storage prices have been falling. They're another technology that has large numbers of similar units and has a strong manufacturing experience effect.

coldpie 3y ago
> Lack of proven renewable hydrogen is an argument that would also rule out nuclear. I don't think so. We just built a new plant in Georgia. Minnesota's power grid is already 1/4 nuclear. We've done it before, we can do it again. It would be nice to get costs down, but it's not a requirement. The only thing stopping us is political will and US's general inability to accomplish big things. Hydrogen storage isn't here today (but I hope it will be soon!), nuclear is.