Green hydrogen is developing now, and is very real, and is based on polysilicon solar advancements and PEM electrolyzer advancements, both of which provide ~3 decadal cost-down paths. See these two companies of ours:
Suspiciously missing are efficiency numbers. How many "joules of hydrogen" do you get from one joule of electricity? We already know electric cars are on the order of 80% efficiency overall.
Without telling you anything groundbreaking, around 80% for PEM. It's more than acceptable when you look at how much excess solar production is being built.
I don't think you know what the word "vaporware" means.
1 GW per day of new solar is being installed globally. Where do you think the excess mid-day production is going to go? It doesn't have to go anywhere, actually. But it will go somewhere.
99.9% of all hydrogen currently on the market is not "green". It is either captured by products from dirty industrial processes, or more commonly it is made from gas or coal and the CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
If you're championing a tech that based on the one form of it that's basically a rounding-error in the overall prevalence? Yes, that's vapourware.
No, that isn't what vaporware means. Vaporware means a technology promised, but not delivered. What it doesn't mean is a technology promised, and successfully delivered, and at the beginning of its growth curve as supply of the enabling products ramp.
By your definition, solar was vaporware in 2001 because less than 1 gigawatt per year was built. But it wasn't. It was simply early in its lifecycle. Today, 1 gigawatt of solar is installed in the world every day. Next year China will likely reach 1 TW of annual solar production capacity.
This is perhaps why software people shouldn't throw around the word "vaporware" –- a useful software-industry term –– in hardware-based industries with well developed and well understood generational patterns.
The oil companies don't own many pipelines. Pipeline companies own those. And pipeline companies are eager to do business with hydrogen companies.
The fight here is over whether natural gas-made hydrogen (SMR) is an interesting fuel at all. I think the numbers say no, while solar-made hydrogen is in fact extremely interesting.
Are you referring to hydrogen as a mobility fuel specifically? I generally agree.
However, it is a critical large-scale industrial input, a replacement industrial input for several additional large industries, and an excellent large-scale stationary energy store.
Is it an excellent large-scale stationary energy store though?
I mean, it seems like it should be but
* Hydrogen really likes to leak.
* Hydrogen breaks down the container holding it over time.
* Hydrogen is very low density. This means you need either a
very large container or very high pressure. Combined with 1 and 2 this is going to be expensive.
I'm really asking the question. I would love to know the full cost difference with current tech vs other options.
That's probably only the 'primary' real risk, there are some number of secondary real risks of hydrogen being a very reactive chemical. Not in the flammable boom boom, but the interacting with stuff it shouldn't and causing degradation and corrosion.
The jellyroll li-ion batteries invented by Sony, perfected by U.S. firms, and their IP then stolen and maximized by Chinese firms (namely CATL), are an inelegant, imperfect, and in many cases fundamentally dangerous design. And those companies have no route to improving thermal handling. It needs to change.
The issue is that utilities spend more than 50% of their incremental operating expense getting that electron to you, not making/buying it in the first place. With that kind of cost-stacking, nuclear has little hope of competing with solar.
The "solar makes nuclear useless" line seems wrong. There are situations where solar isn't feasible (like in a spaceship or on a boat or submarine). There also may be space, reliability, and weather limitations that make solar less attractive. Finally, we're making solar panels very fast, but if we really go all-in, it will take a long time to build as many as we need. It's probably better to hedge our bets and build nuclear now.
Re: Helion, I'm skeptical that their fusion reactor will ever be commercially viable but am not an expert and would love to be wrong. There's tons of Helion skepticism on the internet you can find if you look around.
Mistake, to underestimate scale effect. For example, in Ukraine use large enterprise fission reactors (mostly 900MWt or 1000MWt), and they are so effective, that could sell energy for less than half of solar cost.
Yes, we have some parts of country with small population density, but their share of energy consumption is also small, so they are not affect whole balance much.
I must admit, things are constantly change last months, so future could be very different. But just now, nuclear are cheapest in Ukrainian energy balance.
I guess your country also has no oil? But gas stations? Magic, I know! Or it has oil and no chip industry but you have a computer? Mind blown. If your country has oil and a chip industry, chapéu!
As someone in the UK, I can buy a subscription to Amazon Prime Video, or not, I can buy a subscription to Netflix, or not. I can pay for a BBC licence so I can watch iPlayer, or not.
I can watch free TV on ITVx or Channel 4 switching a subscription for adverts.
That's not strictly true, there are plenty of streaming services that come out of the UK but they are tailored for the UK market; BritBox being the most prominent.
The parent was making a jibe at the TV License which is mandatory if you own a tv or "streaming capable device" (because the BBC can stream now.. sigh).
