Thanks for the post! Will do a post about hydrogen in the future, my main position now is that by adding energy to CO2 you can build chains from the bottom up. Which is very nice! And at higher water temperatures you can use different catalysators that reduces the amount of electricity needed to split up the molecule.
Excellent analysis. When I previously suggested having nuclear plants switch back and forth between electricity and hydrogen production, I was informed that intermittent hydrogen synthesis is much less efficient.
The main point about using SMRs combined with PEM electrolysers is that the SMRs runs at 100% availability, which is the perfect operational/high-earnings state for NPPs. They can switch between electricity supply to the grid and manufacture of greenH2 within milliseconds. In the UK, and I imagine in most operating circumstances, direct earnings would come from: (i) grid electricity (ii) greenH2 (iii) grid load following service (iv) grid frequency correction service.
With 3 other income streams, the greenH2 could still bring in earnings at whatever market price prevailed at the time.
The lifespan of PEM electrolysers is only ~50,000 hours, so an SMR/PEM combo, running at, say, 50%capacity factor for the PEM, would require ~ 5 of them to get to the 60 years design life of the SMR. But by 2030, PEM electrolyser prices will be down to $300/kW, which would add $1500/kW to the SMR cost. A BWRX-300/PEM combo would be ~$4000/kW, which is still less than, say, an AP1000 on its own.
PEM electrolysers suffer no technological impediment in accepting very rapid load changes.
Thanks for the post! Will do a post about hydrogen in the future, my main position now is that by adding energy to CO2 you can build chains from the bottom up. Which is very nice! And at higher water temperatures you can use different catalysators that reduces the amount of electricity needed to split up the molecule.
Good article!
See:
The Nuclear Secret the Battery Crowd Wants Hushed
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/the-nuclear-secret-the-battery-crowd-a93
and...
Nuclear Energy Breakthrough Suppressed by the Woke Mob
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/game-changing-nuclear-energy-breakthrough
Excellent analysis. When I previously suggested having nuclear plants switch back and forth between electricity and hydrogen production, I was informed that intermittent hydrogen synthesis is much less efficient.
Is that correct?
The main point about using SMRs combined with PEM electrolysers is that the SMRs runs at 100% availability, which is the perfect operational/high-earnings state for NPPs. They can switch between electricity supply to the grid and manufacture of greenH2 within milliseconds. In the UK, and I imagine in most operating circumstances, direct earnings would come from: (i) grid electricity (ii) greenH2 (iii) grid load following service (iv) grid frequency correction service.
With 3 other income streams, the greenH2 could still bring in earnings at whatever market price prevailed at the time.
The lifespan of PEM electrolysers is only ~50,000 hours, so an SMR/PEM combo, running at, say, 50%capacity factor for the PEM, would require ~ 5 of them to get to the 60 years design life of the SMR. But by 2030, PEM electrolyser prices will be down to $300/kW, which would add $1500/kW to the SMR cost. A BWRX-300/PEM combo would be ~$4000/kW, which is still less than, say, an AP1000 on its own.
PEM electrolysers suffer no technological impediment in accepting very rapid load changes.
Thanks!