Comment on Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds
Tibert@jlai.lu 6 months agoIt’s another solution, now there is also issues with costs. However with time the costs can be reduced.
For hydrogen based on this video : youtu.be/M0fnEsz4Ks0 there could be some hope for large hydrogen storage for a smaller cost (not used in cars tho, due to the weight).
Hydrogen production however is/was very ineficient. However there is also some hope for this youtu.be/m0d6iljzzEI
So with this, maybe it could be an interesting solution to store energy.
Tho I’m not sure how efficient it would be to produce energy from that stored hydrogen, and how efficient it could be for the entire hydrogen production/storing/electricity production chain.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months ago
Even if the current technology for producing zero-emission hydrogen is relatively inefficient, that’s not really such a problem since it’s a zero-emission process.
Tibert@jlai.lu 6 months ago
The issue isn’t emissions, it’s costs. Sadly we don’t live in a dream world, and everything has a cost.
Even running excess production into hydrogen production has costs (transport, storage, infrastructure…).
The current (not taking in consideration the new tech currently in testing) beeing highly ineficient creates many cost issues.
Less effieicnt means that more power needs to be used to get that amount of hydrogen, reducing the gains on electricity surplus.
The storage beeing ineficient means a higher running cost, more space used, less of that space…
The transport beeing ineficient also increases the running costs, but also the emissions if the transport uses fossil fuel. Of it uses hydrogen, well it increases the running cost even more. That expensive produced hydrogen is used for transport…
The electricity production from hydrogen being ineficient increases the used hydrogen to get the same energy amount, which then increases the costs because more of that expensive hydrogen has to be used.
So taking all this into account, being “clean” doesn’t mean it is viable.
The costs have to be taken in account because resources don’t appear magically.
Mining Uranium has a cost. Buying it from abroad has a cost, paying people to maintain all that has a cost…
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 months ago
The relative costs are just a question of policy. Legislators could make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive tomorrow if they really wanted. Anyway, if Australia doesn’t have a good source of fissile material (I have no idea), that is a fair point against nuclear power there. However, that just means other big, ambitious emission-free power projects should be considered instead, like deep-well geothermal, concentrated solar, and coerced rooftop solar. Seemingly cost effective half measures that keep fossil fuels in the mix are a mistake.
Wilzax@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Especially when the bulk of your hydrogen production comes from excess energy generation