• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit.

    You better be bringing units if you’re going to be claiming this.

    Still less than half of the LCOE of nuclear when storage is added: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

    Given that both solar and storage costs are trending downwards while nuclear is not, this basically kills any argument for nuclear in the future. It’s not viable on its face - renewables + storage is the definitive future.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      And cheaper solar and batteries permits cheaper Hydrogen which provides unlimited and 100% resilient renewable power, and still cheaper than nuclear.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I have a generally negative impression of hydrogen because many of the intended use-cases seem to be a cover story for the gas industry to keep existing, which it very much should not be any more.

        Do you know any use-cases where hydrogen is truly warranted, outside for example steel production, which I think might be legit?

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          The case for an H2 economy is one entirely based on Green H2 made from surplus renewables which are needed most days to have enough renewable energy every day.

          That gas companies know how to build pipelines, distribution, and make metered gas sales to customers is a path for them/employees to remain useful without destroying the planet.

          Commercial vehicles has legitimate benefits of lower cost from H2 FCs than batteries. Quicker refuel times. Aviation especially benefits from redesigning planes for H2 for the weight savings. Trains/ships need the power/range. Trucks/cars can use the range extension, and could use H2 as removable auxiliary power for extended range.

          Those vehicles can also charge the grid, and as hybrids, EVs or grid can be charged from static H2 FCs. For building energy, a FC can provide the usual fraction of domestic hot water from its waste heat. The electric monopoly problem is an opportunity for both producers and consumers to bypass their high rates and fees. Ammonia and fertilizer is traditional use for H2. There needs to be a carbon tax to move away from giant fosil H2 plants powering next door giant ammonia/fertilizer plants.

          Hydrogen electrolysis is just one form of electro chemistry. Other fertilizers can be made from simpler versions of the process. It’s not so much that H2 is essential in unlimited quantities, it is that electro chemistry is possible ultra cheaply when there is an abundance of renewables that provides enough energy every day to power their locality. H2 is special as a chemical for being transportable/convertable as mobile or other elecricity/heat.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            The case for an H2 economy is one entirely based on Green H2 made from surplus renewables which are needed most days to have enough renewable energy every day.

            Wouldn’t it be more compelling to store it in other types of batteries instead of H2 primarily?

            That gas companies know how to build pipelines, distribution, and make metered gas sales to customers is a path for them/employees to remain useful without destroying the planet.

            I honestly don’t think H2 is a good idea for these use-cases. H2 distribution is a different beast than natural gas distribution, on top of gas combustion just generally not being particularly good compared to common household electrical counterparts (induction for stoves, electric for ovens, heat pumps for heating buildings and water).

            Commercial vehicles has legitimate benefits of lower cost from H2 FCs than batteries. Quicker refuel times. Aviation especially benefits from redesigning planes for H2 for the weight savings. Trains/ships need the power/range. Trucks/cars can use the range extension, and could use H2 as removable auxiliary power for extended range.

            I imagine refueling times is not necessarily going to be critical for all types of commercial use-cases.

            Aviation struggles with the relatively low energy density in H2.

            Trains should essentially always be running on catenaries.

            Boats might be able to make use of H2, I’m not super familiar with the issues affecting them.

            Long-hail trucking should broadly be replaced by the much more efficient rail shipping.

            Cars run pretty much fine on electric as is, I’m not sure the case for making H2 cars is compelling enough to be warranted.

            Ammonia and fertilizer is traditional use for H2.

            This might be a good niche for H2 to fill.

            All in all, I’m still not convinced that large-scale H2 buildouts is a good use of our resources, but there are definitely a few compelling niches that it can fill. We need to be wary of them being co-opted by blue hydrogen fossil fuel companies though, which often seems to be the case today.