News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi... by pfdietz on Sunday September 27, 2020 @09:07PM (#24611816)
Make hydrogen, store it underground, and have enough combustion turbines available to back up the grid. A simple cycle combustion turbine power plant is about 5% of the cost of a nuclear power plant, per unit of power output.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi... by p1mrx on Sunday September 27, 2020 @09:46PM (#24612111)
That seems physically plausible, though it would be a lot easier if we could make methane efficiently, because we already have the infrastructure to transport and burn it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi... by pfdietz on Sunday September 27, 2020 @09:51PM (#24612144)
The problem then is where do you get the carbon to make the methane. Ammonia might be a possibility, if it can be kept from escaping (toxic) or dissolving in underground water.

Yet another possibility is underground storage of high temperature heat, artificial geothermal, if you will. But it would have to be extractable with cheap equipment. Perhaps it could be used to superheat hydrogen for injection into those combustion turbines.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi... by GekkePrutser on Monday September 28, 2020 @08:45AM (#24616028)
Making hydrogen via electrolysis is very lossy though.. it's only worth it if you have nothing else to burn the power on.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi... by pfdietz on Monday September 28, 2020 @06:05PM (#24621719)
Or if you need a chemical energy store with very low $/kWh of storage capacity, for long term or rarely used storage. There, the efficiency penalty is much less important than it would be for rapidly cycling diurnal storage.
[ Parent | on HN ]