- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Amazon thinks hydrogen can be a more sustainable fuel for vehicles at its warehouses, but it’ll have to clean up hydrogen production first.
Amazon thinks hydrogen can be a more sustainable fuel for vehicles at its warehouses, but it’ll have to clean up hydrogen production first.
It’s not even is the same ballpark as dc batteries. Charging a battery is 93-97% efficient as is the use of that power so overall efficiency stays above 90%. Hydrogen average 40-60% overall efficiency. It ONLY makes sense when using 100% renewable.
Especially in situations where it’s otherwise wasted. California has been curtailing massive amounts of solar each year, dumping the extra into hydrogen would be amazing
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.