That is absolutely true. But if the hydrogen production increases the power plants overall efficiency from 30% to 50% (estimates are in that realm) then the overall efficiency of the system is competitive, since as compared to current nuclear generation the efficiency of the hydrogen production is greater than 100% as we’re using energy that is waste in the current system.
Of course, using electricity in that model is still more efficient so long as the markets for better uses of hydrogen aren’t saturated, but if we went all in, then it might be possible for it to be the case.
30 % efficient power plant? That is low, like… below the level of a stationary diesel engine (generator). A cogenerating power plant is at 60 % and can be as high as 80 % when the thermal energy can be used near the power plant.
In other words: you are correct when you compare to such an outdated power plant, but since you already have to build new, you need to compare to a new, efficient plant without hydrogen generation.
Even in the context of nuclear power, 30 % is very low and a new reactor would be at nearly 50 % just for electricity. But with nuclear the hydrogen generation would make sense, but absolutely not for use in fuel cells. Hydrogen is needed everywhere where they currently need to use methane.
Additionally I did specifically say that electricity would still be better for cars unless hydrogen production were such that more suitable uses were fully supplied.
Why do you quote a blog that mixes efficiency with other parameters as a source for power plant efficiencies?
In any case, you need to compare state of the art plants with each other, not a mixture of up to 70 year old plants with a new plant.
That is absolutely true. But if the hydrogen production increases the power plants overall efficiency from 30% to 50% (estimates are in that realm) then the overall efficiency of the system is competitive, since as compared to current nuclear generation the efficiency of the hydrogen production is greater than 100% as we’re using energy that is waste in the current system.
Of course, using electricity in that model is still more efficient so long as the markets for better uses of hydrogen aren’t saturated, but if we went all in, then it might be possible for it to be the case.
30 % efficient power plant? That is low, like… below the level of a stationary diesel engine (generator). A cogenerating power plant is at 60 % and can be as high as 80 % when the thermal energy can be used near the power plant.
In other words: you are correct when you compare to such an outdated power plant, but since you already have to build new, you need to compare to a new, efficient plant without hydrogen generation.
Even in the context of nuclear power, 30 % is very low and a new reactor would be at nearly 50 % just for electricity. But with nuclear the hydrogen generation would make sense, but absolutely not for use in fuel cells. Hydrogen is needed everywhere where they currently need to use methane.
Wikipedia quotes 30% for diesel generation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_generator (see typical operating costs)
According to the EIA, natural gas has the highest efficiency at around 43% as of 2015. Coal, oil, and nuclear plants all fall around 33%, with nuclear keeping a slight lead. https://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/how-efficient-is-nuclear-really-/76858
Additionally I did specifically say that electricity would still be better for cars unless hydrogen production were such that more suitable uses were fully supplied.
Why do you quote a blog that mixes efficiency with other parameters as a source for power plant efficiencies? In any case, you need to compare state of the art plants with each other, not a mixture of up to 70 year old plants with a new plant.