this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
142 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
59223 readers
3444 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's where nuclear can shine as well, make hydrogen during off-peak hours
Or just make hydrogen with solar and wind. Just refill the reservoirs when there's a lot of sun or wind.
So when there's not a lot of sun and wind? Nuclear HAS to be a big part of our energy future if people are actually serious about 100% fossil free energy
I'm not saying it shouldn't, I'm saying for a hydrogen plant for warehouses, renewables are absolutely fine. We're not solving all the electrical needs of the warehouse here, only the vehicles.
So renewables can refill the tanks, and hydrogen can power the vehicles. As long as there's enough wind and sun on average to keep the tanks full enough, it'll work.
It makes no sense to convert nuclear power into hydrogen, it's massively inefficient. (Green) hydrogen is of interest precisely because sun and wind availability varies. It's a good way to store the excess when an excess is inevitable.
It clearly does make sense to make the most of existing nuclear capacity , it does not make sense to build more nuclear. It costs billions and takes decades to come online, the same billions spent on solar and wind starts producing power immediately.