Many within the nuclear community have at one point experienced an epiphany on suddenly coming to realise that most of the things said about nuclear energy are false. This conversion experience brings a strong conviction that the current challenges confronting the energy sector, including climate change, would easily be solved if countries simply went all-in on nuclear. Understandably, the groups that lied about nuclear are resented. Those lies generate mistrust and those feeling can then extend to their preferred energy technologies – notably wind and solar. It is easy to get stuck in this moment and to end up just as tribally motivated on energy as Greenpeace and their fellow eco-travellers. To truly grow though, it is important to move beyond this.
Post-epiphany, with the blinkers suddenly removed, it becomes obvious that most of the climate-energy discussion essentially boils down to nuclear versus renewables. Indeed, it is amazing just how loud and prevalent this argument is.
Zoom out from the nuclear versus renewables discourse though and it becomes clear that such a debate concerns only the outer fringes of a global energy system that remains dominated by fossil fuels. Getting to a net-zero carbon world, and even more crucially to a true-zero carbon one (which doesn’t cheat via carbon offsetting) requires a much broader focus and set of actions.
We can be grateful for the impressive progress countries have made in decarbonising electricity to date, but even here the job is less than half done. The question of how to decarbonise the global heating, transport and industrial sectors remains poorly answered at best. Oil and natural gas are the true life-blood of modern economies. Replacing them is immensely difficult.
In recent years clean hydrogen (and hydrogen-derived fuels) has again taken centre stage, re-emerging as the missing ingredient in transition pathways. ‘Clean molecules’ to support clean electricity, as the slogan goes. Many in the clean energy and climate community now promote hydrogen with a fervour, revering it as the magic bullet that will miraculously fill all the gaps and make the transition possible. This of course includes many in the 100% renewable energy community that see hydrogen as a form of long-term energy storage and which ultimately eliminates the need for any other energy sources.
Not all are convinced on hydrogen however. Certain individuals are highly sceptical about its ability to contribute significantly to decarbonisation. They point out poor conversion cycle efficiencies. They mention issues with handling, storing and transporting this incredibly light and volatile gas. They quote issues with material embrittlement, as well as safety and public fears about injecting it into existing energy networks. In short, they see hydrogen as a red herring that detracts from much more necessary measures such as increased electrification and decarbonisation of electricity supply. Moreover, there are fears about clean-hydrogen ambitions locking in and extending the use of polluting infrastructure today, since hydrogen is currently mostly derived from steam-reforming of natural gas. This is set to continue as a stopgap measure until clean sources are eventually brought online. Ironically, using natural-gas derived hydrogen is in almost every way worse than simply using the natural gas directly.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataProminent renewable energy advocates have written scathing critiques on low-carbon hydrogen, attacking the suggested use of it in heat networks and poking holes in Germany’s hydrogen targets and plans to import hydrogen into the EU from Canada.
The hydrogen versus electrification debate, not nuclear versus renewables, is arguably the most crucial question confronting energy decision-makers today. It is a genuine fork in the energy transition road and choosing the wrong path could have huge implications for both the energy system and the relative level of planetary temperature rise. Surprisingly, the nuclear sector finds itself occupying an enviable position in this debate as whichever pathway is eventually chosen it stands to gain.
It is an under-appreciated fact that nuclear energy is one of the more promising technologies for producing low-carbon hydrogen. This is due primarily to high plant capacity factors which allow for maximum use of capital-intensive converters offering good economics for hydrogen production.
The excess heat from nuclear plants can also help to boost the efficiency of certain conversion processes, while the ability to site nuclear plants flexibly and not have hydrogen production limited to high renewable resource regions. This helps to reduce the need for costly hydrogen transport and allows more countries to benefit from local production (thereby improving energy security).
Some research has also explored how nuclear plants could be operated in ‘hybrid mode’ and swing between electricity and hydrogen production depending on the availability of electricity and market price in ‘partnership’ with a variable renewable energy generation portfolio.
Unlocking nuclear’s full potential for clean hydrogen production entails successfully commercialising modern high-temperature reactor designs. This has long been an ambition anyway, with some promising reactor designs and fuel technologies on the horizon. Meanwhile the biggest near-term challenge to nuclear’s hydrogen producing prospects seems to be getting policymakers to realise its potential and not to use hydrogen policy as the latest renewables subsidy scheme. This is headache-inducing as the old tribal fight resurfaces, but does look increasingly solvable in light of increased public acceptance of nuclear technologies.
On the other hand, if countries lean heavily into increasing electrification rather than hydrogen, then the nuclear industry is still set to prosper. One would expect to see the minimum baseload demand for electricity steadily rise as the power sector takes over a greater share of transport and heating. Nuclear energy is already broadly recognised as the definitive baseload energy technology – even by people who don’t particularly like it.
Meeting the need for increased baseload demand could be achieved with a broad spectrum of reactor technologies and sizes – including current and advanced designs, both small and large. This future seems more agnostic towards nuclear technology developments.
If the nuclear industry was compelled to pick a side in the hydrogen versus electrification debate for any reason, then out of self-interest it should probably advocate for increased electrification. This would seem to present fewer obstacles to nuclear growth. A better tactic, however, is to let the wonks fight this particular one out and to instead advocate for a thorough evidence-based approach.
In the meantime, the nuclear industry should be doing everything it can to align with clean hydrogen initiatives and educate as widely as possible its strengths in this area. Nuclear utilities should be developing programmes such as nuclear plant ‘hydrogen hubs’ and helping demonstrate high temperature electrolysers and thermochemical production methods.
These efforts may end up being wasted. The hydrogen hype bubble may burst in the coming years but it doesn’t actually matter. The nuclear industry does not need to be ‘right’ about this. It simply needs to be ready for whichever future emerges. At the moment it is less ready for a hydrogen economy, and that is therefore where the work should go.
By far the worst outcome for the nuclear sector is if neither path is taken. If governments grow disillusioned with climate action and the low-carbon energy transition loses momentum then fossil fuels will ultimately win out. Right now, it is refreshing not to be the centre of the climate-energy debate and whether sceptical of hydrogen’s prospects or not, the nuclear sector should bask in this respite, and make the most of it.
