And here is Panasonic, proving there is more to them than producing batteries for Teslas, working away to introduce in the 2020-30 timeframe everything from hydrogen direct by electrolysis from sunlight to hydrogen storage and home hydrogen fuel dispensers, as well as heating and providing electricity for homes and businesses by using fuel cells and hydrogen:
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/panasonicdemonstration-experiments-begin-for-the-hydrogen-fuel-cell-of-the-future-device-developm/

It can be batteries AND fuel cells. Planes can reform bio Jet-A with cars, buses and trucks using bio DME in HTPEMs with new anode catalysts.

Using waste products from paper plants bio synthetic fuels can be made for all kinds of transportation. The technology is here we just have to have the intelligence and will to use it wisely.

From the link I gave above about what Panasonic is up to:

'Since November 2016, 3 units of Panasonic’s prototype hydrogen fuel cell have been installed in the “Yume Solar Kan Yamanashi” in Komekurayama, Yamanashi Prefecture. Panasonic is conducting its demonstration experiment in cooperation with the prefectural government. Yamanashi, home of the World Heritage site, Mt. Fuji, has a high awareness for preventing and reducing disasters, and it has also been one of the earliest prefectures to adopt mega solar. Using the energy management system, this facility sorts 10,000kW of energy created from solar power generation into “stable” and “unstable” energy. Stable energy is then supplied to the grid, and the remaining unstable energy will be injected into the large-scale water electrolysis device to electrolyze tap water. It is estimated that annually 450,000Nm3 (normal cubic meter) of hydrogen will be created. And experiments are being conducted to use this hydrogen to generate electricity with the 3 hydrogen fuel cells, which will be cooperatively controlled to respond to the changes in demand.'

I have repeatedly and consistently argued on this forum that it is folly to seek to dismiss hydrogen and fuel cell technology, together with other means of chemical energy storage, in favour of the notion that everything can be done with batteries, although the exact split will be determined by how those technologies do.

But way before that I argued in favour of nuclear technology, with the main drawback being that they weren't building much of it in the West.

But now China is getting to the point where its pebble bed reactors can be build modularly, as drop in replacements in coal burning power stations, using the same turbines etc as they are high temperature.

Other modular reactors are also being developed.

In my view used in conjunction all these various technologies have synergy, and can do a much better job together than the one size fits all approach some advocate.

So for instance nuclear for baseload would greatly reduce the chemical storage needed to store renewables, and solar with storage would do a good job in the US for peak load which is highest in summer heat due to air con.

Which is to say that the more tools and technologies we have at hand to make and store energy the better.

Nothing wrong with the development of NPPs to reduce initial cost by at least 50% to 66% to make them more competitive.

In many countries, with sunny weather and/or high quality winds, very low cost REs can be produced for as long as the sun shines and wind blows. Storage systems (with batteries or via the H2 route) will soon become cheaper and more efficient. REs fed batteries and FCs may become the backbone of clean future BEVs and FCEVs.

Another issue battery only advocates ignore together with that of storage of renewables over winter is that of somewhere to plug in.

Most cities in the world have nowhere that most of their inhabitants can conveniently plug in.

Wiring up every roadside is a fantasy, rather than something we can remotely approach doing at any reasonable price, and what do you do if your bit of kerb is occupied?

Notions that people are going to spend lots of time sitting at even relatively fast charging stations every week are also unrealistic for non-enthusiasts.

We need all the tools we have got to de-carbonise transport, including fuel cell cars.

The situation in California should not be generalised to that in the rest of the world where conditions are very different, with longer, harsher winters in many places and nowhere to conveniently charge.

DME is not a greenhouse gas like methane.
It oxidizes in the atmosphere within hours.
It is also stored at 75 psi not 3000 psi.

yoatmon:

The ideal would be to produce more Wind/Sun REs (@ about 35+% combined) and store the surplus electricity into VERY low cost batteries (@90+% or so). The stored electricity could further be adapted to much high voltages (to match the grid) for longer distance e-transport and for general usage including BEVs.

That very clean method has at least 2 major problems:

1. the current very high cost of batteries.
2. the very low performance of current batteries.

Both barriers may fall by 2040 or so when high performance (1000+ Wh/Kg) batteries cost fall much below $1/kWh.

These are all very Sober comments. I am anxious for Bill Gates China-based TerraPower TWR Nuclear reactor to prove successful. Will the initial U235 seed will work transforming U238 into the fissable (... to Pu239), but will the wave sustain outwards and remain Hot until it is fully spent Decades later. I think they are targeting 2020 to start. Does anybody know the Status? There is a 1000 years or more of Spent Containers stored in Kentucky alone. This is the fuel oxide I believe they will start with.

Also, I am waiting for home-based solar panels to become competitive with Dominion electric from a capital perspective. Electrolyzers, H2 storage and FCs would be cool when my demand is low. I have traditional Geothermal HP right now, but I will eventually replace this with a DC Geothermal setup and power it at times using direct sunlight or stored H2 and FCs.

I agree. Counter to Yoatman, it better to use new Nuclear Designs to use (spend) the waste than to store the waste in perpetuity. It is the safer option.

@ SJC, What is the well-to-wheels efficiency of this https://phys.org/news/2016-02-proven-one-step-co2-liquid-hydrocarbon.html process? It sounds energy intensive? My problem with fuel cells has always been the horrific inefficiency of isolating, compressing, transporting, and converting to electricity their fuel. This (http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html) is an older chart referring to H2 well-to-wheels being 1/3rd of BEV. If your initial input is renewable electricity, I have yet to see any chemical intermediary that doesn't flush 50-70% of the energy before it gets to the wheels. Even if you are getting your chemicals from waste streams that are already hot (which usually have scalability limits), I still strongly suspect the well-to-wheels conversion efficiency is poor compared to BEV. Also, Fuel Cell Vehicles need to have big batteries to handle acceleration and regenerative braking, so, why not just go all the way to BEV?

It makes sense to Throttle electric base load (NG, Nuclear, Hydro, Coal). Why would we ever want to Throttle Wind and Solar. Someday we may have too much Wind, Solar, Hot Geothermal, Wave, Hydro. If this happens, make fuels too.