This could prove way more practical than hydrogen, but I don't know enough about the proposed hydrogen solution to really say anything about it for sure. It just sounds suspicious, while I know the geothermal storage option does actually work and has good track record, nothing novel in it.
That doesn't mean thermal storage isn't on the radar but only for hot water / heating purposes.
That doesn't mean thermal storage isn't on the radar but only for hot water / heating purposes.There is a concept out there that could do this in theory: https://helioscsp.com/mit-proposes-pv-to-discharge-energy-from-2400c-silicon-thermal-storage/
I'm guessing pretty bad total efficiency, though the output might be utility heat + electricity?
In other news, seems not all German politicians had their brains scooped out when it comes to energy:
https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-energy-nuclear-bavaria-idUKL1N36I0J7
So with all these great ideas, have we saved the planet yet?
AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.
The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.
And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.
So with all these great ideas, have we saved the planet yet?
Actually, the real world is much further in "saving the planet" than you understand [...]
heat pumps for heating we'll need about three times the electric power we're generating at the moment
Yes, there will likely still be fossil fuel usage (or synfuel) in 2050, because some applications are challenging for batteries or hydrogen. So we will need to be pulling CO2 out of the air for those applications, as well as to undo the CO2 emitted so far.
some extreme rare Dunkelflaute events, which could be countered by just keeping the gas plants in readiness and not building anything.
Therefore, keeping the nukes running for a while more while allowing the gas price to skyrocket due to the political difficulties, would have allowed electricity price to go down and gas price up, driving people to finally install those heatpumps, which should have happened ages ago; and has happened in Asia no problem, and even in Nordic countries where they are worse, no problem. But Central Europe - nope.
(Exact same logic is true for EVs.)
In central Europe you get up to 4-5X efficiency because of the mild winters.
Sometimes I wonder whether Putin is a top secret Greenpeace agent meant to cut short the fossil fuels based buisness modell of Russia, which could do a lot of harm if unchanged.
A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor.[1] In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial introduction date to the end of 2022.[2][3] In January 2022, more delays were announced, with fuel loading continuing until mid-2023,[4][5] and again in December 2022, delaying fuel loading to early 2024
In central Europe you get up to 4-5X efficiency because of the mild winters.
Note that my notation of "1X input power = 3X renewable harvesting" is equal to COP of 4. That would be typical realistic for central Europe mild weather.
I always want to be a little bit conservative when promising savings, but COP exceeding 4 is indeed possible if the conditions are just right and the devices used in the correct way.
My opinion on shutting down all nuclear power plants: it's total nonsense! Shutting down an old plant for safety reasons is fine, but it should be replaced with a new and hopefully better one. With the shift to electric cars and heat pumps for heating we'll need about three times the electric power we're generating at the moment. I don't see how we could achieve this by just adding more PV and wind generators.
For the idea to restart the residual German NPPs: this makes relatively little sense and also the power companies don't think it is practical, as a restart would take 1-2 years at least.
The plants would need a major revision and there are not even regulations and thus no plans or preparations for that.
The idea of a restart is more like a pre-election idea of someone who is not in charge nor running for the relevant position. So this is just for publicity.
AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.
The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.
And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.
But this is the point, the 4 cents/kWh is only valid for old nuclear plants. You can not base the calculation on that. (And we of course COMPLETELY exclude the waist storage price for tens of thousends years)The prices in Olkiluoto if you count with 8,5 billion euro cost and 50 years of working would be around three times of the 4 cents.. I also read some 11billion Euro may Siwastaya can check that. Hinkley point C is not ready yet but already way over the planned costs.
AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.
The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.
And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.
But this is the point, the 4 cents/kWh is only valid for old nuclear plants. You can not base the calculation on that. (And we of course COMPLETELY exclude the waist storage price for tens of thousends years)The prices in Olkiluoto if you count with 8,5 billion euro cost and 50 years of working would be around three times of the 4 cents.. I also read some 11billion Euro may Siwastaya can check that. Hinkley point C is not ready yet but already way over the planned costs.There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budget.
There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budge
There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budge
There are only a handful built after 2000, though. The few successful are in China. Hundreds of financial success stories are from 1960's to 1980's. The art seems to be partially lost. You can't ignore the current track record and just say "hey, all those who failed were just bad implementations, there's nothing wrong with the principle." If this is true, why so many fail? Something has truly changed in how nuclear power is implemented since 1980's. Especially if you want to see more nuclear, this can't be ignored, because poor track record is preventing investments as we speak.
And neither is the fact that nuclear waste consists of toxic metals which remain toxic until the end of the the earth's existence.
Where it comes to H2 storage: Hystock mentions a 98% roundtrip efficiency for underground storage. So for every euro worth of hydrogen you pump in, you get 0.98 euro worth of hydrogen out.