How Nuclear Enabled Hydrogen (NEH) Will Save The Planet

And save trillions of wasted $s per year & millions of premature deaths per year that are a direct result of burning fossil fuels (FFs):

“…The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day…”

”…These researchers study the impact of burning fossil fuels in particular. They find that the death toll from burning fossil fuels – in power generation, transportation and industry – 3.6 million premature deaths annually…”

Do we really need to enter the battleground of the climate change debate when pollution-free energy technologies exist to entirely replace the burning of fossil fuels (FFs)?

For the hoped-for, upcoming ‘Energy Transition’ to materialise, the pop-song rendered by politicians, energy ‘experts’ and the investment community is:
‘We need all of them’ - wind; solar; batteries; nuclear; geothermal; biomass; etc.; etc..

The mainstays of most of the 130 Countries, 146 Regions, 249 Cities and 918 Companies committed to ‘Net Zero’ are wind, solar and batteries. But the numbers bandied about by proponents of these technologies [renewables] are mind blowing and need to be recognised now as delusional.

Thanks for reading SMRs & greenH2 for a FF-free World! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Using impeccable data sources and with no axe to grind, Mark P Mills shows wind, solar and battery worldwide demands will be broken on the wheel of the ‘mining & refining’ of critical minerals. In particular, a ‘Copper Crunch’ may become apparent in the next 2 or 3 years.

Copper is already showing a 1/3rd increase over the average prices for the last 15 years or so - and that 15 years average is some 280% higher than previous decades, which might be reasonably explained by the increased energy demand and the move to renewables, battery storage and BEVs over the past 15 years.

The Conclusion: Only [Advanced] Nuclear Power, in the form of small modular reactors (SMRs) (financed from commercial money markets with trillions of dollars of investment available) stands any chance of ridding the world of the cost in $s/lives from the burning of FFs.

So all electricity generation will surely be from Gen III+ SMRs

But where does NEH fit in?

On social media platforms there are many [energy-expert] naysayers of ‘The Hydrogen Economy’ who refuse to accept that clean, pollution-free hydrogen is as fundamental as clean, pollution free electricity, to displacing polluting FF use, along with its attendant costs in monitory and life/health terms.

Robert Bryce: who believes the H stands for Hype

Mark Nelson: on record as saying "hydrogen is a mess..........hydrogen is just an ugly thing..."

Paul Martin, a chemical engineer with decades of experience in the hydrogen industry, calls hydrogen ‘hopium’ and believes hydrogen is a fuel of the future - like nuclear fusion (always 50 years away)

In the face of such experienced opposition, why should NEH make all the difference?

A ‘complete’ pollution-free electricity grid, capable of diurnal and seasonal load following is possible for these reasons:

1) SMRs combined with proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers can load follow diurnal grid demand. The SMR operates at 100% availability, which is the perfect technological and financial mode of operation for a nuclear power plant (NPP). PEM electrolysers have a sub-second demand response for both turn off and turn on, with no detrimental effect.

2) Operators of combined SMR/PEM electrolysers get the first revenue stream from supplying grid electricity. When demand falls, switching to a second revenue stream, NEH production, happens in milliseconds.

3) Then, 2 other revenue streams apply: “…This qualifies…PEM…electrolyser systems for frequency response services more demanding than the existing primary grid balancing payment structure and has the potential to command higher availability payments…”

4) The NEH could be sold profitably at prevailing market prices because of the other 3 income streams.

5) Seasonal load following will be achieved by carefully planned plant outages for refuelling and maintenance.

Other imperatives must also apply to a safe and cost effective ‘Hydrogen Economy’

1) The vast majority of NEH produced must be fed into a piped gas network, since transporting gaseous/liquid hydrogen is completely non-viable unless ‘peculiar’ market conditions exist.

2) NEH is piped to the point of use for compression, liquefaction, etc., depending on market demands.

3) The ‘energy’ flow rate for NEH within a given pipe size and at the same pressure is only 20% less then that for natural gas (NG)

4) A typical gas network may well have enough storage to eliminate the need for any other form of storage, including pumped storage, and - even hydropower could be consigned to the dustbin of history.

5) NEH can never be used in premises, etc., where hydrogen industry regulations - flame proof electrics; ventilation; leak detection; etc; - are not feasible.

6) Use in domestic, commercial, etc., premises for heating and hot water is out of the question. Apart from the dangers, heat pumps are so much more cost effective requiring 3 to 4 times less electricity generation and infrastructure to supply the same amount of energy.

7) All transport will be fuelled by NEH [and possible synfuel derivatives] and, because of the real-world limitations on the mining/refining of critical minerals, iron/steel-based internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) will displace both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)

8) Vehicle ownership will not be just for the rich. The cost of NEH-powered ICEVs will be the same as FF-powered ICEVs; a thriving second hand market exists; a whole-of-life infrastructure is in place.

9) Aircraft design need not require reconfiguration of airports for NEH-powered jet aircraft. In fact design issues are less for long-haul aircraft than for medium range, etc., aircraft

Apart from PEM electrolysers producing NEH in ‘cleaning up’ electricity, many dedicated SMRs will be needed to manufacture the huge volumes of NEH to ‘clean up’ all other sectors.

Much more efficient than PEM electrolysis is high temperature solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) technology, although it does not have the capability to load follow.

When powered by steam at 850°C from a NPP (which can be currently operating light water reactors - LWRs), an SOEC produces NEH at a rate that is a 47% greater than PEM electrolysis:
2026 target for PEM electrolysis 51 kWh/kg H2 (~19 kg/MWh)
2026 Target for SOEC electrolysis 36 kWh/kg H2 (~28 kg/MWh)

For more than a decade, UK wholesale electricity prices averaged ~£50/MWh and, after averaging ~£200/MWh for the past 2 years, it is now stands at ~£85/MWh. It may well return to that £50/MWh in the not too distant future, when earnings from NEH production at £2/kg would be on a par with earnings from electricity sales.

Next: The cost of powering the UK with SMRs & NEH is 2X better than a zero-sum-game!

Then: Expanding the quantities and costs from the 67 million UK population to the 4,307 million, comfortably ‘energised’ [2019] urban population will indicate the feasibility and cost of creating a world that will ultimately be free of FF pollution.

Thanks for reading SMRs & greenH2 for a FF-free World! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.