3 ms·

I think we have passed the threshold for production cost. According to this overview [1] solar was at 1 cent per kwh a few years ago and panels are even cheaper

I think we have passed the threshold for production cost. According to this overview [1] solar was at 1 cent per kwh a few years ago and panels are even cheaper now. Hydrogen can be created at 80% efficiency, so it seems like we should be able to generate hydrogen for somewhere around 2 cents per kWh once the investment in electrolysers are paid off. Converting the hydrogen back to electricity triples that but even 6 cents is cheaper than nuclear. Also, you wouldn't need to actually build solar specifically for this purpose. You could have the electrolysers run whenever the market conditions provide cheap electricity for any reason. Windy nights, warm winters, cold summers, economic downtimes, whatever - generate cheap gas to use later. And again, this infrastructure will never get more expensive in the future. There are no leaking storage sites that have to be sanitized (Asse II), no cracks in reactors that cost billions to fix (France) no Sellafields, Fukushimas or Chernobyls will ever happen related to hydrogen. If I interpret your question correctly you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? The answer to that is no, I wouldn't, because I think that the orders of magnitude larger risks for unknown costs with nuclear also have to be considered. Even if nuclear was half as expensive as green hydrogen to operate it would be better to go for hydrogen, and since it seems likely that nuclear is instead the MORE expensive one, the choice should be very easy. At the very least I think the moment is ripe for a budget the size of a typical nuclear power plant to be spent on making a few large scale hydrogen facilities. Try it out at scale. It will take a few years but far less time than building a new reactor. [1] https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-...

credit_guy 3y ago
> you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is: both green hydrogen and nuclear are technologies that are currently too expensive compared to what the market can bear. But technology can evolve. If the cost of nuclear went down by a factor of 10, would you become a proponent of nuclear technology? What if it went down by a factor of 100? Is there any level where you would? If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? Why are you debating? It does not seem honest to me to engage in a debate where your position is that you would never change your mind, but expect the other guy to be willing to change theirs. Edit (to answer because we reached max depth limit): There's nothing for me to change my mind, I already think nuclear is too expensive to build. Here's my statement on HN a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 But does nuclear have the potential to become 10, 100 or 1000 times cheaper? I think so. Just 3 weeks ago Kairos received an NRC permission to build a pilot FLiBe reactor. https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-green-light-for-advanced-nuclear-non-lwr-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-gre...
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? I'm trying to change your mind because I honestly believe you are mistaken in your position on nuclear. Also because you are arguing well and seemingly in good faith, which I appreciate. We all have biases and you might show me my blind spots, it's important to challenge oneself. If the truth turns out to be that nuclear is entirely safe and the cheapest option available, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I have seen absolutely nothing anywhere to indicate that this is the case. Now, if the truth turns out to be that it is both much more expensive than we have been told, more so than many alternatives, as well as famously risky, would you stop supporting nuclear? If not, why? I have found many many sources that indicate that the second scenario is true, but none that indicate that the first scenario is true. I sincerely hope that's the only reason why I have my opinion.

credit_guy 3y ago

> you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is: both green hydrogen and nuclear are technologies that are currently too expensive compared to what the market can bear. But technology can evolve. If the cost of nuclear went down by a factor of 10, would you become a proponent of nuclear technology? What if it went down by a factor of 100? Is there any level where you would? If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? Why are you debating? It does not seem honest to me to engage in a debate where your position is that you would never change your mind, but expect the other guy to be willing to change theirs. Edit (to answer because we reached max depth limit): There's nothing for me to change my mind, I already think nuclear is too expensive to build. Here's my statement on HN a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 But does nuclear have the potential to become 10, 100 or 1000 times cheaper? I think so. Just 3 weeks ago Kairos received an NRC permission to build a pilot FLiBe reactor. https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-green-light-for-advanced-nuclear-non-lwr-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-gre...

Kon5ole 3y ago
>If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? I'm trying to change your mind because I honestly believe you are mistaken in your position on nuclear. Also because you are arguing well and seemingly in good faith, which I appreciate. We all have biases and you might show me my blind spots, it's important to challenge oneself. If the truth turns out to be that nuclear is entirely safe and the cheapest option available, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I have seen absolutely nothing anywhere to indicate that this is the case. Now, if the truth turns out to be that it is both much more expensive than we have been told, more so than many alternatives, as well as famously risky, would you stop supporting nuclear? If not, why? I have found many many sources that indicate that the second scenario is true, but none that indicate that the first scenario is true. I sincerely hope that's the only reason why I have my opinion.