Decarbonising steel is a funny thing to say. Since steel is an alloy of iron and carbon it should mean turning steel into iron. Of course it is meant in a different way in the article.
Yes, the confusing issue is that iron-in-your-house or as a building material generally has a higher carbon content than steel, making the latter more elastic and less brittle (generally).
>To decarbonise DRI, producers can add carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to catch the emitted CO2. Or, if they have an external heating source, they can use pure hydrogen instead of coal, a process called HDRI – this is the decarbonising steel technology that has probably received the most investment up to now. Alternatively, there are two types of electrolysis technologies. In aqueous electrolysis (AE), as used by Electra, iron ore is submerged in acid and zapped with electricity, making the oxygen bubble off. In molten oxide electrolysis (MOE), electrodes are placed in powdered iron ore and a high current is run through it until it melts, and the oxygen comes off.
All of these processes require an intense amount of energy either directly or indirectly. Where is all this energy to come from if right now it comes from coal/fuel?
> Sweden’s SSAB, for example, is building an underground cavern, where it will store hydrogen it has created using off-peak North Sea offshore wind
I found the following information about the SSAB pilot cavern:
The pilot plant has a size of 100 cubic meters. At a later stage, a full-scale hydrogen gas storage facility measuring 100,000 to 120,000 cubic meters may be required which is sufficient to supply a full-sized sponge iron factory for three to four days.
Even then. Hydrogen quickly moves upwards. If it is a ground storage, any burning should happen above the storage and not enter it (at least in theory). And you can measure changes in pressure quite easily. I mean, it is not like hydrogen storage has not been done for more than 100 years.
All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.
Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions of subsidies that in the end didn't accomplish anything. But at least they are not in South Carolina where the consumers are still paying for the 9 billion wasted on VC Summer before they concluded "this project will never be in the black" and quit [2].
Nuclear's tagline since the beginning was "energy too cheap to meter" which turned out to be one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind.
Nonsense. Had Germany adopted nuclear in 2020 for the Grünewende they would be done by now, and they would have cost them less then they actually spend in that time and what they will have to spend.
Even with pessimistic assumption of paying 5 billion $ per plant. If Germany had done what France did in the 70/80s they would be much better off now and for the next 100 years. And the cost per plant would be far lower once you start mass production.
If you actually did it right rather then incredibly stupidly, nuclear waste would be a resource for the future, and the idea of disposing it would be utterly ridiculous. Just as with all these idiotic disposal solution that governments like to waste money on. In typical fashion the anti nuclear people first create problems, demand that money is spend on them and then blame nuclear for those problems.
A sensible approach would be have a government fuel bank responsible for securing reserves of nuclear fuel, supplying and recycling nuclear fuel to the nations nuclear fleet. This fuel reserve centrally managed and it controls access to fuel for both commercial operates, research, ESA and so on.
Maintenance of spend fuel is not actually expensive and it places little burden on government to do, even if its for 100s of years. Its literally just a bunch of containers in a warehouse. And that could of course be supported by fees for rate payers.
Complete denial of reality. I've posted actual numbers on real costs, but of course there are always people like you dealing with imaginary money, throwing around numbers they can't back up.
Pessimistic 5 billion per plant -- what a joke. Flamanville 20 years under construction, 20 billion. Olkiluoto 15 years under construction, 15 billion. Hinkley C, deadline for 2027 already clear will not be held, price tag already estimated now to be 40 billion in the end [1].
If Germany had done what France had done in the 70s and 80s it would be in the same situation as France is today: every other month a plant goes into emergency maintenance because of cracks in the pipes, and relying on neighbors to keep its lights on.
If it had invested in nuclear 20 years ago it would be sitting on heaps of unfinished uneconomical plants and it would still use coal for the majority of its electricity. The plants even if finished would take decades to make up for the lost opportunity to reduce emissions during the decades of construction.
Rubbish! Nuclear energy's days are numbered. That industry will need to find another way to take tax payers' money.
Go look at the UAE, its less then 5 billion for a 1.5GWe plant.
And that is when you produce 4 in a row, when you produce 50, it would actually be much cheaper.
But I know how anti nuclear people always have to look at 1 off builds to justify their position, and ignore evidence from mass builds such as France.
> If Germany had done what France had done in the 70s and 80s it would be in the same situation as France is today
Germany actually did proper maintenance on the plants it had and they had excellent uptime.
France is in this position because the anti nuclear government tried to phase out nuclear and they had so much nuclear that they failed to keep their plants up to date.
Anybody that denies that Germany would be vastly better off if they had followed France in the 70/80 is so blinded by hate that it's actually fucking sad.
France didn't fail to maintain, those plants were never meant to run longer than 30 years. Here is the EDF president from 1979, translated [1]:
> In the extract that we offer to you at the head of the article, Marcel Boiteux described what could be the probable origin of the appearance of cracks in the conduits leading to the tanks, in particular the differences in temperatures. A risk clearly identified from this time as shown by his words: « these tanks are subjected to thermal cycles. When the factory is in full power, it is hot, when it is in low power, it is cold ». The temperature of the water heated by the fission of the uranium atoms reaching according to him at 350 ° C ( it is in fact 320 ° C ). He continued: « The result is that the steel is diluted by heat and contracted when it is less hot. And it is this thermal respiration that is involved. »
> EDF president wanted to be reassuring, stressing that these risks were minimal, insofar as the power stations have a shorter lifespan than that where corrosion of the steel and the appearance of cracks would appear. The longevity of the steel had been calculated « per 12,000 cycles. According to him, there was no risk that this deadline would be exceeded. It was « totally excluded », he said.
> Jean-Louis Servan-Schreiber, who was conducting the interview, asked him to specify the effective duration planned for a power plant: « 12,000 days a power plant ? That is to say 40 years ? ». Marcel Boiteux confirmed this estimate, even minimizing it: « Yes, just over 30 years old. »
I don't want to look at UAE, I live in Western Europe. All of the countries comparable to the country I live in are facing exploding costs and incredible time delays. That nuclear builds don't get cheaper as you build more of them is a well documented phenomenon, we have 70 years of proof.
Had they done what you say, by now they still would not have decided on a location. Just look at the delays and cost overruns with Finland's reactor - and that's with popular support.
Finland where now green nuclear will be a very large part of their energy mix for the next 100 years? How sad ...
Again, anybody who looks at nuclear other then threw trying to prove its bad, will figure out that 1 off builds are expensive. Had Europe with German/French leadership agree on a single plant design and started building it all over Europe we could be building these plants in 5 years or less of build time.
France in the 70/80s managed to find locations. I turns out that local populations actually love their local nuclear power plants. People living close to nuclear are far more pro nuclear then anywhere else.
The promise of jobs, improvement in rail infrastructure and cheap electricity convinces more villages that it is a good idea then people would think.
France faced a lot of opposition to their plan in the 70/80s and yet they found lots of locations and the population there are the most pro nuclear people now.
Its funny how people always call for European cooperation but EU universally building the same nuclear plant 100+ times was not considered. There is no question that this could have been done at a very low unit cost price. If you build that many with the same work force, and supply chain the price drops massively.
If the ~$800 billion cleanup costs of a Fukushima event werent fully borne by taxpayers then maybe the safety regulations wouldnt have to be as onerous.
But they are, and Ive never heard of a single pro nuclear advocate ever argue that nuclear power is safe enough that this enormous subsidy should be unwound. They generally pretend it doesnt exist.
Meanwhile solar/wind/storage is a lot cheaper even without taking this subsidy into account.
Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident.
Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is somehow crazy. And yet they end up doing it anyway as we have seen in the recent crisis.
Had the government simply adopted a nuclear strategy from the beginning it would be vastly cheaper, population would be vastly healthier, grid operation would be far easier and energy security for the next 100 years would not even remotely be in question. It wouldn't have forced the German right to make a devils deal with Russia and the Left would have gotten their carbon free grid.
"the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident."
Where are you pulling these numbers from? Your ass?
The last 30 years were also one of best times to be alive as an average person on the globe generally.
How nuclear idiots can spin everything negatively is pretty funny.
Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life, the prototype replacement in Flamanville is a national embarrassment and is now over a decade and over 10 billion over budget.
If the world decides to go all in on nuclear it would take decades to decarbonize a tiny percentage of the grid and horrendous costs.
The world doesn’t have to decide to go "all in" on anything. It can simply lift all the unnecessary burdens it placed on the nuclear industry and let the free market sort out the best solution, like always.
If nuclear works for the world's subs, it works on land too. It will probably be a mix of energy sources anyway, each with its own strengths and weaknesses and it’s own place in ecosystem.
In that case nuclear is completely dead. There probably hasn't been a nuclear power plant built without government subsidies in history. French nuclear for instance is essentially bankrupt because they can't even run them let alone build new ones, so the government nationalized it last year.
But sure, get rid of all subsidies on everything and let the market sort it out. We can agree on that.
Talking about the market in energy policy is just silly. It has been driven by government, all over the world for decades.
And if you have things like a public health care system then, it matters a whole lot if coal and gas plants blow smoke into the air or not.
Historical data from the US shows this well. If coal plants would have had to pay even a fraction of the health cost the caused, nuclear would have been universally adopted 1990. And that is before we even talk about coal sluge and other issues. Its before we talk about all the stuff the US did in the middle east to keep the oil flowing. Nuclear in the US even paid a fee for nuclear waste, while coal paid no fee for its waste.
If you look at societies total energy cost over the last 50 years, France looks incredibly good. They had very low energy prices for many decades now and had not no health cost from bad air from electricity production. Nuclear plants are also stable high quality healthy employment for many.
> Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything.
Its almost as if nobody tries to do something it doesn't happen, shocking insight.
> It's because it plainly doesn't work.
Except that its actually proven to work and renewables are not proven to work. Because there is actually a major world industrial economy that worked on nearly 100% nuclear and there is not such a nation that runs on only renewables.
So maybe if there is prove of anything, its that one works the other doesn't.
> The plants are reaching their end of life
Complete nonsense ... there are many far older plant operating. Nuclear reactors can run 80-100 years.
> the prototype replacement
Like the innovative Superphénix that was killed of by the Green-Leftis coalition.
> was nationalized as a consequence
France has had 40 decades of the lowest energy prices in Europe and still has very low cost. All the construction cost of the whole nuclear fleet were on the books of the utility and were paid off over decades. If French utility was allowed to charge as much as energy prices in Germany, it would be wildly profitable.
The French state forced them to invested profit from nuclear into solar that hurt their own networks operation and also forced them to cheaply sell bulk nuclear electricity to support fossil and then the utility had to buy that capacity back at a way higher price, losing billions in the process.
France has for 25 years now had governments that didn't like nuclear, they have let go the whole industrial base that built up. The were so spoiled by nuclear that they didn't do any of the basic maintenance and upgrades done in pretty much every country in the world (including ironically Germany). Had they just done so, they wouldn't have had any of the problems they had last year.
France treated its amazing nuclear capacity from the 70/80s like the tree in 'The Giving Tree'. The reality of course is France saved incredibly amounts of money in their health care system because they had 50 years of nuclear rather then 50 years of coal. Nuclear in France was one of the best energy policies ever done by anybody.
> If the world decides to go all in on nuclear it would take decades to decarbonize a tiny percentage of the grid and horrendous costs.
Lets look at a case study, UAE. They decided in 2009 to do nuclear, first plant active in 2020 and finishing 1 reactor a year. So a nation with no nuclear and no experience in 1 year will have 25% nuclear and these plants will last 100 years or more. The could have just continued this and by 2030 the could have 100% nuclear. But this is political.
Let me do some basic math for you. Even at the still high unit prices UAE was charged. Starting in the year ~2000, when Germany really adopted 'Grünewende'. At that point they had 20% of well functioning nuclear. At that point the total cost of going 100% nuclear in Germany, even with a very high very conservative cost of 5 billion $ per plant, for like 250 billion Germany could have gone 100% electric. That is approximately 5% increase in debt to GDP. Realistically it would be much less as data shows that if you are building many of the same plant with the same workforce it gets vastly cheaper. Germany could have done this in 20-30 years no problem, if France can do it so can Germany. This would have guaranteed Germany clean green energy for the next 100 years or more.
The failure of nuclear was and is about politics, not about the technology.
The cleanup after a nuclear incident is also regulated through the wazoo. Thus it's expensive, deeply corrupted and probably unnecessary. We'd probably be better off simply closing the area for a couple hundred years until the most radioactive (and thus dangerous) stuff half-lifes away.
Meanwhile coal plants keep spewing slightly radioactive ash into the air and into our lungs and the cost is paid by us all in life expectancy. And soon by our whole civilization in global warming.
Chinese don't compromise on safety. Their Gen 4 reactor designs are probably some of the safest to be built. They actually bought said design from Germany when they abandoned their nuclear aspirations.
Instead it mostly comes down to:
a) China being a frankly fucking massive place so land is already much cheaper than the US/EU/etc.
b) More realistic regulations on waste processing/storage etc. China isn't scared of nuclear waste because it's not stigmatized as it is in the West and they are able to handle transportation/storage/plan for reprocessing with logic rather than emotion.
c) CCP having a simple and importantly efficient system of requisitioning land from citizens (essentially they buy them out for above market and set them up somewhere new).
The latter one is the big thing that really sets them apart when it comes to infrastructure projects. Yes building a huge dam displaces like 250k people but they do it anyway and move everyone to new homes.
There also isn't a process for saying no or negotiating so said process doesn't get dragged out. In practice that isn't usually a huge problem because in China it's considered like a lottery win if the government decides to build a highway/railway through your house because they will pay much more than the house is worth on the open market.
Obviously such a system would never fly in the West though.
b) is also pretty important. If you keep hand wringing about waste even when the amounts really are inconsequential then you are going to make things really expensive for no real reason.
China also has a huge desert they can use to store waste essentially indefinitely if they really can't find a way to reprocess it. Though that seems pretty damn unlikely.
Safe design doesn't mean safely built or operated. I don't doubt they are technically capable of doing it, I'm not convinced they will. They aren't really known for not compromising on safety. And seeing the direction they are going to I think that's not going to improve.
>China being a frankly fucking massive place so land is already much cheaper than the US/EU/etc.
China is virtually the same size as the US with 4x the population and more unhabitable land.
Didn't China build a huge hydropower dam because the government dictated it would happen ? Even over the people that had to move and the changes to their environment?
Nuclear power is expensive in the US because of stringent regulations, most of which should be kept. However there are lessons from existing installations, newer designs, and better technology to help design things now, than in the 50s and 60s.
That dam was necessary primarily to stabilise the path of a historically very destructive river. Many of the people that moved had suffered through floods in the past.
China builds nuclear power not because it is cheap but because it shares a lot of the costs and skills base of their nuclear military.
Iran builds it because it wants the option of having a bomb.
Take out military concerns and it is economic for neither of them.
Every country who builds nuclear power stations is either a nuclear power sharing military costs (France, UK, China...) or is taking out an option on quickly developing a bomb (Sweden, Iran, Japan, South Korea) against geopolitical concerns that are glaringly obvious.
>>China builds nuclear power not because it is cheap but because it shares a lot of the costs and skills base of their nuclear military.
One of the previous commenters above mentioned that China abandoned their own plans bought their design from Germany, so it's conceivable that if China had no military nuclear program they could have still built a reactor. (That's of course if the western world allowed it)
Nonetheless, the cost to the constructor is such that without a military reason it doesn't make any sense to build one.
I expect North Korea will turn its attention to civilian nuclear power fairly soon now that the race to become a fully fledged nuclear power is complete. It would make economic sense to them given the industrial capacity, skills and resource base it has accumulated in the process of building the bomb. For most other countries? Not so much.
Big picture is that theyre not just cheaper but 5x cheaper.
In fact it's so much cheaper that it's even more economic to use solar/wind to synthesize natural gas and burn that to generate electricity.
Never mind all of the cheaper short term storage options (pumped storage, batteries).
And this doesnt even account for the storage nuclear power would need (it's even less economic to use it for load following) or the need for taxpayer indemnification against catastrophe cleanup costs.
It's not done at scale because we don't actually have that much spare renewable energy capacity. Whenever renewables power over 90% of current usage on one particular day anywhere it tends to hit the news.
Pretty much every MWh generated by green energy these days is just a MWh of natural gas extracted from the earth that is not burned. This actually means that while we use as much natural gas as we do that the economics of nuclear power are even worse by comparison.
The above study is a hypothetical solution to solar and wind routinely overproducing what batteries and pumped storage can keep up with. Even then it probably wouldn't make economic sense until natural gas extraction gets hit with import or carbon taxes. Just because it's cheaper than nuclear power that doesn't make it cheap.
No one will do this at scale until we stop burning fossil gas.
But as a technology it exists. The early outputs will be for things that can't be replaced with cheap renewable generated electricity, like e-fuels for spacecraft, which Tesla is doing in Texas.
Ah. Those fights I mostly put in the same category as "fights with NIMBYs over building new 8-track factories", "fights with NIMBYs over digging the Mississippi-Yukon shipping canal", etc.
(Vs. the NIMBYs are pretty much fine with 100%-carbon steel.)
...when they're available. Energy storage is another story, especially in places where there are no convenient hydropower facilities which can be "run in reverse" to store the output from said renewables as potential energy in the reservoirs. Maybe hydrogen storage can play a role here, maybe synthetic hydrocarbons can but for now there is no real solution for those still dark winter nights when the sun and wind are absent, necessitating the establishment of a backup power source which can cover the entire demand. Some of this can be achieved by importing power but where does that imported power come from? When it is dark here it is dark in neighbouring countries as well. There might be some wind power but that won't be enough to cover the needs. There may be hydropower available in neighbouring countries but how far can this power be exported before the losses outweigh the gains? Someone somewhere will need to build a backup power plant to cover the needs. That will most likely be a nuclear power plant since that is the only "carbon-free" source which can supply the needs. And then... there is a nuclear power plant which can supply power all day long since fuel costs are only a small part of the operational costs of nuclear power plants. Why only use it as backup power then?
A possible future scenario might be a base load infrastructure fed by reliable nuclear power plants and hydropower where possible ensuring power is always available. Renewables feeding into hydrogen storage or hydropower storage facilities to create hydrogen for those processes which can make use of it - e.g. steel production, synthetic fuel production etc. - and to keep the hydropower reservoirs filled. Domestic solar may play a role as well since it is feasible to use battery storage at a single-home scale, especially when used EV batteries start to become available at scale - for now it is just too expensive.
France transition from coal and oil to almost 100% nuclear in 20 years.
I'll wait here for any other country to do remotely as well with 'renewables'.
Lets see how Germany did after 20 years of their Green revolution ... mmhh yeah they would have done a lot better with nuclear.
Nuclear was the fastest scaling of any energy source ever discovered in the US. Faster then even oil. But then regulation changed and basically forced all plants to be totally re-engineered and new designs had to be made. At the same time coal became massively cheap and at that time the idea that a green source should have some kind of advantage was simply not viable.
Had nuclear given the same intensives as renewables, it would have been adopted in huge numbers. For example, a simple law that states all utilizes need some X% of nuclear would have totally changed the US. Renewables got that incentive, nuclear never did.
Many would argue that Germany saved human civilization by investing early in renewables.
Various other countries/places/people/organisations contributed too, but still, it's weird that something can be considered as so dramatically successful on such a scale and also such a complete failure by different groups.
I started this talking about nuclear policy only, but I wrote more on all the issues I have with German environmental policy. I'm gone lay out a case on why German is a negative player in the global movement against climate change.
Their removal of perfectly well functioning nuclear plants that could have run for another 50 years is nothing less then criminal, Ill talk more of that later. Their strong anti-nuclear position influenced the countries around them to also get ride of their perfectly well functioning nuclear plants.
Belgium for example turned of a perfectly well functioning plant in the middle of the energy crisis. Switzerland stopped investing in its own energy production because Germany would just produce so much cheap energy that can easily be imported, yeah great policy.
Even France had been persuaded that nuclear is bad and in 2015 they basically also followed Germany and tried to do a nuclear phase out far earlier then technically possible. All in blind trust that they can just replace 20+ nuclear plants with a few solar panels. They also forced the potential profit of the utility (from nuclear) to be reinvented into solar (not to mention forcing them to support fossil as well).
All nations around Germany have to breath the coal ash that Germany distributes over all off Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and Eastern France. And have done so for decades and it has measurable effect on air quality and health in all those places. Somehow Switzerland (where I'm from) doesn't get coal ash from France, funny how that works.
France on the other hand has had clean energy for 40 years. Even home heating in France is usually done with electric. Its baffling to me that people see Germany as this great success, when their coal plants are still going strong and will be for another 10 years at least. Housing in Germany is still often oil and gas as well.
Anti-nuclear people love to just ignore the last 50 years of coal use in Germany and have for over 30 years insisted that nuclear is to expensive and slow, despite the evidence from France that you can change a economy to nuclear in 20 years and having paid very little for it. Don't believe people who claims France has high taxes because of nuclear, that is nonsense.
Its countries with the cleanest energy use the most nuclear, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Finland. Some countries with a lot of wind do decently well but also build a lot of gas capacity so it isn't as cheap as people claim.
611 gCO₂eq/kWh right now, France 28. And that is with all the idiotic anti-nuclear policy France has adopted in the last 20 years. Germany currently has almost 25 GW of coal on the network, and only 2.7 GW nuclear. At peak, Germany had enough nuclear capacity to replace all the coal use they have today, but they made the choice to shut down all nuclear before all coal, and this was widely supported by Greens and environmentalists.
How anybody can call this a success, because they invested in some solar panel production is beyond me. Germany played itself up as the environmental savoir nation in the international press, everybody around the world tried to 'be like Germany'. And yet, France had literally already achieved more then Germany decades earlier but of course that was never mentioned anywhere.
I'm genuinely baffled why people are so positive about Germany. They have been selling themselves as this green nation for decades. But reality this is not supported by any evidence what so ever.
They didn't do very much to get away from oil and gas heating. Their strongest industry is the car industry, and they are backwards in terms of the new green urbanism. Their high speed rail network is still patchy, sub-optimally designed and incredibly delay prone. 'Die Bahn' the German railway operator is generally regressive in its European policies, opposing many major European rail reforms. The Autobahn high speed is polluting. Their car makers are currently trying to prevent the adoption of laws EU laws that push EVs.
They had international obligation and agreements to increase cargo rail transport North-South in Europe. A real all electric rail cargo highway, from North Sea ports all the way to Italy. Switzerland build the longest rail tunnel in the world and everything else. Even f*ing Italy build its part of this project. Germany, mmmhh, maybe they will do it next decade. Well I guess at least the Autobahn will be used for more diesel trucks instead, thanks Germany.
I can't think of a single area of environmental policy where Germany is actually leading. Germany is everything that is bad with the environmental policy. Its a success of marketing over results. 3rd world nations around the world should not look to Germany, they should look to France (in the 70/80, not so much lately) for electricity, to Netherlands for urban policy, Switzerland for public transport.
Remember that Greens parties all around the world got their start by protesting against nuclear. Even though it's a completely idiotic position to hold today it's a legacy of a time where it was thought to be more dangerous than coal.
Unfortunately they can't let that legacy go in the face of new evidence so they still campaign as hard as ever against nuclear which has was less vested interests protecting it than coal and thus it falls first.
SSAB has located it’s H2 plants near several large hydroelectric power plants, so in Sweden’s case we have to build nuclear power plants further south to provide power to the bulk of the population.
That should happen anyway since the transport capacity between the hydropower-rich north and the power-hungry south and west is not sufficient and there do not seem to be plans to change this situation markedly - possibly because the state (in the form of Svenska Kraftnät [2]) makes a pretty penny on the "flaskhalsavgifter" [1]. They can start by correcting the mistakes made by the previous governments in closing half of the available nuclear power generation capability, repeal the law which states that no new nuclear facilities can be built in locations other than those where one already exists and get serious in establishing new locations close to where the power is needed, preferably chosen so that waste heat can be used as well.
If you only run in daytime you have the same capital costs for half the output - a lot harder to make viable. Might be OK if the energy cost dominates anything else?
I suspect that you don't need that with aqueous electrolysis. I think the advantage is the electrolytic cells are cheap.
Problem with solar is intermittent power means intermittent use of capital equipment. How much an issue that is depends on the ratios of electricity cost, capital cost and depreciation.
> “A couple of years ago, they developed a proof of concept, but nobody’s heard anything from them since,” says Bataille. “The hope is they are close to hitting commercial scale.”
That kind of a strange thing to say. Boston Metal has been progressing just fine and have been sharing some of their progress online and are in talks with lots of different partners.
I don't think the industry is confused of where they are.
