Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpmx | Hacker News Reader

So 57-83 €/kWh, or on average about 175x more expensive than the current already insane electricity prices in central Europe. This is the concept that will save us according to the (qoften German, for some reason) anti-nuclear fundamentalists who have gotten into this pickle in the first place.

View on HN

At that price, wouldn't a diesel generator burning cooking oil be cheaper?

Diesel in a diesel generator is already roughly on par with the current insane electricity price, dunno about cooking oil, but it's probably roughly similar.

You could have made the same argument against solar panels 15 years ago.

This is a pioneering product for early adopters - expect prices to go down significantly with economics of scale. And further research in this area is far from exausted.

I mean, I don't disagree. The problem is that lots of anti-nucluear-fundies are comparing existing nuclear power to hypothetical hydrogen storage - "it's just a matter of research".

My point is: Deploy nuclear power now, continue RND on large scale hydrogen storage that maybe will pan out in 20 years.

Yes, I was not proposing such system as a large scale solution for the coming winter. It would be prudent to keep our nuclear reactors running for now.

As always, There is No Silver Bullet™.

Nuclear is not the perfect solution. It cannot be powered on and off on short notice, which would be useful for complementation of solar and wind that have high power output, but also sudden slumps. Ironically, the ideal companion for renewables would be gas...

Lithium batteries could compensate short outages, but don't have enough (feasable) capacity for long seasonal shortages.

Enter Power to Gas. Hydrogen can be a good tool in that area.

A commerically available hydrogen storage system (that is in high demand even despite its price point) will definitely accelerate innovation very effectively. I think this tool will be available quite soon for mere mortals.

I'd add that it's also prudent to build new nuclear reactors now. The tech exists and there is a very clear lack of mostly plannable power supply in many countries/regions.

The tech for building reliable, safe, affordable, large-scale hydrogen "batteries" isn't here yet.

New nuclear reactors are also not here yet. They might become ready in 8+ years if started now.

So the solution is simple. Nuclear has its place. Power2Gas too. Build and invest in both. And in the meantime, use what we have without ideolgical eye patches.

Do you have any affiliations with "Power2Gas"?

Please respond to my argument instead of implying bad faith.

I can sharpen my argument even further:

Existing nuclear reactors - keep them going. They are here today.

Solar - leverage its decentralized, bottom up expansion by the people that can use their own roofs, reduce beaurocratic hurdles. Its expansion does not have to wait 8 years. The products are here today.

Power 2 Gas - celebrate existing products on the market. They are here today.

All these things are here today and part of a solution which contains many parts. I welcome each and every betterment, because we will need it.

You on the other hand are dismissing key tools and instead focus on one thing that is not here today and will maybe be ready in 8+ years.

Nuclear power plants take years to build. Even if a plant were approved today, it wouldn't be finished before large scale hydrogen storage either fails or takes hold, at which point it would be an expensive and unnecessary boondoggle.

Reminder: You're comparing the construction of existing tech (nuclear power plants) vs tech that doesn't even exist: large scale, safe and affordable hydrogen storage.

You may find this interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/wvjfiy/how...

Did you just divide the cost of a storage system by the amount it stores and then compared that to the cost of a kWh of electricity off the grid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com