They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions
I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It’s not green, it’s not environment friendly, it’s not renewable.
Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.
nuclear should not be used to generate hydrogen - if at all it should be used the same as hydrogen would be used: to bridge gaps when not enough renewable energy is available
Nuclear power can definitely not fill this role of a fast switching on and off tool, it works most efficient as a steady long term output. Technically it can stop sending electricity to the grid, but that wastes all the heat that keeps being generated and is immensely inefficient. Heat storage in liquid salt seems to be an upcoming thing for nuclear power, but is not used there yet.
“here” is nice and good, but “here” is not global. This is not about a local incident. It’s easy to have “too much green energy” in one place, just build a single wind turbine and don’t connect it to a grid. But using that excess power to produce an inefficient expensive fuel in one part of the world doesn’t solve the global energy- and emmission- problem. It’s cheaper and more efficient to transport energy all over the world and shut down local fossil fuel power plants than to produce hydrogen, ship that all over the world and burn that.
This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I’m unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.
Also 100years are a very long time
Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
Before using hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, you need to ensure that no fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity. Otherwise you would increase carbon emissions, not reduce them. I don’t see the whole worlds energy consumption going purely green within the next 100 years.
That’s a good valid point for it. For such extreme edge use cases this would make sense.
I’m pretty sure transporting energy over a long distance power transmission over extreme distances like between eg Portugal or South Africa and eg China or the far tip of Russia is more energy and cost efficient than transporting hydrogen. So hydrogen only wins when the target location actually needs hydrogen, not when they need electricity. But I argue that the majority of power demand would be of electric nature.