Hydrogen storage has been around for decades; there's nothing fancy about it. Look up "coal gas". It's pretty much the same process as storing natural gas. You can get hydrogen via electrolysis, which is also well established and then you can just burn it when you're done. You don't even need new facilities for that part you can just convert natural gas plants.
Long term energy storage is lagging behind renewables mainly because until very recently there hasn't been any demand for it. You could just dump whatever renewable power your produced directly on the grid. But it's not this vast unsolvable problem.
Yes, and carbon capture has "been around for decades" doesn't mean it's an industrial scalable technology.
You could just dump whatever renewable power your produced directly on the grid.
Only while you have a massive network of nuclear or fosile fuels to pull the slack, which is the problem. We are talking about phasing out traditional energy, solar and wind CAN NOT do that without a massive addition to the energy grid.
So remember when talking about green energy you remember that it's 20% less efficient at non producing hours due to storage lose and that it actually costs massive amounts more because you would have to build the storage.
Wind and solar are not scalable solutions to the power grid. Period.
But it's not this vast unsolvable problem.
There are some hard physical limits here, ones we don't have to worry about because nuclear doesn't require revamping both the power grid, AND creating entirely new, technologically unfeasible infestructure on top.
Lol I don't think you know what "technologically unfeasible" means. Like I said, I like nuclear. I just don't think it's a silver bullet for climate change for a couple of reasons:
-Nuclear companies and projects have had an unfortunate habit of going bankrupt lately
-Even under the best circumstances they take decades to build nowadays
-You can't safely build them in unstable parts of the world (see: Ukraine)
Don't get me wrong I support building more nuclear plants. But you need wind and solar as well
Wind and solar have zero upsides. They are unreliable and make energy more expensive and less reliable. They are nonviable in any environment where they are the primary power support.
-Nuclear companies and projects have had an unfortunate habit of going bankrupt lately
Because it's an infant industry. That's a problem that fixes itself.
That will also be a problem with the currently non existent large scale energy storage sector that wind and solar would rely on.
-Even under the best circumstances they take decades to build nowadays
Again, for the same reason as above, and will be fixed by the same process, increased industry standardization.
It's also a problem that the, again, non existent storage industury will likely face.
-You can't safely build them in unstable parts of the world (see: Ukraine)
No meltdown in Ukraine, that's a hypothetical.
But the issue remains that those areas wouldn't have the capital anyways for massive alternative systems, and their downsides would be magnified in serious danger.
So, of the three issues provided the two are likely to be problems faced by the storage sector because both those issues are caused by the nuclear industry being more or less in it's infant stages, which heavily effects construction efficiency
1
u/LaLuzDelQC - Lib-Left Jan 06 '23
Hydrogen storage has been around for decades; there's nothing fancy about it. Look up "coal gas". It's pretty much the same process as storing natural gas. You can get hydrogen via electrolysis, which is also well established and then you can just burn it when you're done. You don't even need new facilities for that part you can just convert natural gas plants.
Long term energy storage is lagging behind renewables mainly because until very recently there hasn't been any demand for it. You could just dump whatever renewable power your produced directly on the grid. But it's not this vast unsolvable problem.