OT - Hydrogen economy - please explain

Why is the "green" discussion always centered around solar and wind and not nuclear?

Votes and ignorance. People want perfect now rather than accept steps towards perfection. Nuclear is the solution now, it provides a buffer to explore safer/"cleaner" solutions for the future.

You have to also consider most people swearing off nuclear have little understanding of the grid, the massive amounts of baseline gas it already uses and the nature and variability of renewable energy through the course of the day and how our (and by our, I mean the world) economy doesn't switch off and on easily.
 
Things are changing, it just takes time. You can see the current status of the UK grid here:
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/


When the site first started in 2011, the dials were showing something like 40% coal, 40% gas and we still had a few oil sites running. While gas (CCGT) is still the biggest, it used to be common to see OCGT on there which is much less efficient.

I just downloaded the data for 2011 and it shows on one day in December the grid was 48% coal, 27% gas, 3% wind.
The same date and time for 2021 shows 4.3% coal, 47% gas and 16.5% wind, 6.8% biomass* and 5.2% solar.


*Still not convinced how much biomass counts. All we've done is retrofit coal power stations to burn wood instead, which actually kicks out more CO2, but it's wood that's meant to be regrown.
 
Why is the "green" discussion always centered around solar and wind and not nuclear?
Totally agree with that nuclear must be considered as part of the solution.

*Still not convinced how much biomass counts. All we've done is retrofit coal power stations to burn wood instead, which actually kicks out more CO2, but it's wood that's meant to be regrown.
Yeah, that is highly dubious. Like an easy fix, just substitute coal or oil for wood pellets, and viola totally green. Wood pellets can be part of the solution for small power stations or private use, but not on the big scale.

I also think that the entire CO2 quota system is bogus. Pay off some 3rd world country for their share of the CO2, so you dont have to reduce your own CO2 emissions. How does that reduce CO2 globally ?
And I believe that the system is if not 100% fraud, then 80-90% fraud.

I think that renewables are the long term solution, but it is not good enough yet, and wont be in the short term.
We cannot wait for renewables to be developed enough to save the planet, so in the short term we have to go nuclear.
I think there is some political movement everywhere opening up to nuclear. Some people are realizing that it is not enough to have good intentions, there has to be made substantial progress quite fast.
 
Unfortunately Nuclear isn't quick or cheap or green, though I do think it will have to be an interim solution. I know that Rolls Royce, and so I assume others around the world, are looking at modular Nuclear reactors. They are built in factories and then bolted together on site, they are based on the ideas within Nuclear submarine reactors, but bigger, but still a lot smaller than conventional reactors, so hopefully cheaper. Of course we still have no plan for safe disposal of Nuclear waste. Plus Nuclear reactors are affected by drought, they need a lot of water as a coolant. EDF in France have had to cut output because of low river levels and we know what happened at Fukushima when there was too much water. And, and, we are then moving reliance from Middle Eastern, Russian, etc oil suppliers to other countries, for instance Kazakhstan is the biggest producer of Uranium.
 
I know that Rolls Royce, and so I assume others around the world, are looking at modular Nuclear reactors. They are built in factories and then bolted together on site, they are based on the ideas within Nuclear submarine reactors, but bigger, but still a lot smaller than conventional reactors, so hopefully cheaper.
Yes, I was thinking of small modular nuclear reactors.

Plus Nuclear reactors are affected by drought, they need a lot of water as a coolant. EDF in France have had to cut output because of low river levels
Coastal nuclear plants are not affected by this.

and we know what happened at Fukushima when there was too much water.
That is something else.

In hindsight everything is easy, but frankly I don't understand how they could have designed the backup generator system the way they did.
The generators were knocked out by a common cause (the tsunami), the risk of tsunamis was well known, but the designers simply estimated that it was unlikely that a tsunami would be big enough to defeat the coastal barriers. Given how critical the back generators were, why didn't they design the generators to be completely tsunami proof ?

New nuclear designs can sustain a complete blackout without the need for backup generators.
 
I think it goes far bigger than just moving to green energy.
The fact is that most heating is currently gas, the alternatives are gas of a type that is not fossil based but not the main focus.
That leaves electricity, now the current infrastructure is not being upgraded, I do not know what capacity is availlable but for example where I live the low voltage i.e. 240v/415v will be fed from a transformer local to our area, in the last few years there has been a number of new housing areas either been built or are currently being built, I have not seen any new transformers installed, I do know that one area is actually fed off the existing cables, so we now have a situation where there is increased load on those cables, probably not a problem, however, over the next few years the increase of EV's & heat pumps means that power consumption is going to rocket, imagine a conservative estimate of 20 million vehicle owners charging their EV's & running heat pumps overnight. Not withstanding the amount of power required but the strain on existing distribution media, It is hoped that by 2030 or what ever, we have cleaner energy, but if the suppliers do not invest in getting that power to the people we are going to be really in trouble.
So it is not just the abillity to generate the medium it is also the infrastructure to distribute it, I cannot see any movement in great detail for suppliers to upgrade their distribution medium for what is required.
 
I am an engineer, of course I understand that there has to be balancing supplies for when renewable energy sources aren't producing. But I would still ask if hydrogen is the best option. ...

My view is there is no "best option" but all option has their place. One of the best solution today for utilities scale BESS (Bulk Energy Storage System) is hydro-pumped-storage but there are limited geographic location that you can use it. Hydrogen also has the benefit of being able to refuel vehicle quickly compared to battery charging. However, battery tech is always improving and people might used to the 20 minute quick charge to add 150 miles range thing soon.
 
OK, I am softening my view on Hydrogen, slightly, but only for industrial/commercial use where it can be tightly controlled. But the idea of people filling their vehicles with extremely cold hydrogen fuel fills me with dread. I guess that self service would have to be a thing of the past. Delivering hydrogen through existing natural gas infrastructure is an explosion waiting to happen. How are they going to make a scent molecule so that we can smell leaks as small as a hydrogen atom? And splitting water that we rely on for life still seems very wrong.

But obviously there are minds greater than mine (not hard to be :)) think it is a good idea:

Germany has just launched a fleet of hydrogen powered trains, and an agreement with Canada to supply green hydrogen.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022...tes-worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-train-fleet
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newf...ada-germany-hydrogen-partnership-nl-1.6559787
 
Unfortunately Nuclear isn't quick or cheap or green, though I do think it will have to be an interim solution. I know that Rolls Royce, and so I assume others around the world, are looking at modular Nuclear reactors.
That will be interesting. I was a reactor controls officer on nuclear submarine back in the late 70's. To make the reactor small the uranium must be highly enriched. There is also a trick to how the uranium is placed or positioned in the reactor. Commercial reactors use uranium pellets. That isn't the case for navel reactors. Canada uses heavy water. That isn't cheap. So how small do you think the reactor will be?

BTW, the Fukushima reactor plant was a p!$$ poor design. Reactors can be designed so that the water goes through the reactor by natural convection so electric power is not needed below a certain power level.

When I was in college they built a nuclear plant down stream of Portland. It lasted for a few years and then it generated a leak between the primary and secondary cooling systems. This was probably due to poor chemistry that allowed corrosion of the steam generator pipes. This allowed the radioactive water from the primary system to contaminate the secondary steam/water system that turns the turbines. This makes any maintenance on the secondary system a radioactive hazard. The plant had to be shut down and the cooling towers are now gone.

I don't see it. While I think nuclear power can be safe, it must be handled with lots of care. More plants small nuke plants mean more operators that must be trained.

I am hoping that batteries will be better so storing wind and solar generated electricity is more practical.

There are lots of wind turbines along the Columbia river. There is a lot of wind in the Columbia river gorge which is renowned for wind surfing. There are also many damns on the Columbia River. Right now our problem is distributing the power. Our local bureaucrats want to do away with natural gas. I wonder if our grid can handle it.

The energy density of H2 is very low. H2 must be compressed much more than methane or propane to achieve the same energy density. H2 is relatively safe. The H2 levels must get to about 50% before it will explode. H2 will dissipate before the level gets too high unless it is in a confined area.

The sub could generate O2 by electrolysis. The problem we getting rid of the H2. It was pumped overboard. All that H2 wasted.
 
Pink hydrogen

And now there is Pink Hydrogen!! Using nuclear generated electricity to split water.
Call me paranoid :) but there must be some powerful voices pushing hydrogen.
 

Similar Topics

We have a number of hydrogen gas burn off stacks, each of which has a natural gas pilot light at the top of the stack. There is a flame detector...
Replies
7
Views
6,492
What is "economy resistors" in the following IEC Utilization Category description? How is this resistor connected to the load? Which rating...
Replies
1
Views
1,354
Have any of you who are integrators noticed that no one is spending on capital projects? Our company is a $2-3 million a year PLC & HMI...
Replies
5
Views
2,698
As some of you probably recall I've been happily unemployed for a few months now. I was offered and accepted a job near my hometown in...
Replies
37
Views
7,637
I just wondering how everybody’s business is holding up. I just got of the phone with one of customer, who stated to me “ call him back after...
Replies
26
Views
6,025
Back
Top Bottom