The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it at that moment?
Lightning displays? Build more interconnects ? -must be a
viability constraint(s}?

Wasn't there some blurb on here about the negative effects of
trying to "throttle back" nukes?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/