One very expensive status symbol for most buyers.

If you have a source of biogas, why not just that for your energy needs? Seems like it would be a lot simpler and less expensive.

Smart. Screen/test, isolate, rinse, repeat.

Traditionally, putting propellers far from the fuselage creates a hazard should one fail during takeoff--pilot has to manage the turning moment from single engine on one side. I suppose this isn't such a problem with the smaller takeoff/landing motors along the wingspan.

@EP: If I had to guess, and looking at the graph, large hydro (imports from Pacific NW) declined, natural gas increased, coal is already marginal. Just wait until the ill-advised shutdown of Diablo Canyon in 2025.

"...spontaneous power delivery..." Not sure that's what you mean to say--I'd rather not have my car accelerate spontaneously.

Per SJC, best use case may be for larger scale, stationary applications, where taking off a stream of nitric acid becomes a benefit, not a burden.

I assume the fuel cells need a supply of H2 (from nat gas, bio gas, syn gas) as well as CO2 from flue gas, so the additional power generated is not exactly 'free'. However, good work on a more efficient way to sequester CO2.

@mahonj: 60 MW/unit latest version, FYI.

The world needs *cheap* green energy. Cheap energy is the foundation of prosperity in the modern world. There is no reason (besides entrenched interests) that affordable, safe, clean, nuclear SMRs could not be powering our world.

As far as load-shifting storage for a NPP, I am curious to compare the capital and operational cost of energy storage vs just scaling up the NPP and load-following. In the latter case your NPP capital cost goes up and capacity factor goes down, of course, but you avoid the cost of storage. For intermittent renewables the need for backfill of capacity is mandatory, of course.

Another way: synthesize low-carbon liquid fuels using nuclear heat & power. Also decarbonize the grid with nuclear. The solutions are out there.

Replace the renewable energy source with a small modular nuclear reactor and then you've got something.

@Davemart: please check your math.

Gotta start leaving that carbon in the ground. Oil company balance sheets show these reserves as assets. They are going to go to the mat against anything that impairs those assets (e.g. carbon tax, whatever). This is the fight of the 21st century.

@EP: Your scheme is not practical: just how do you identify the worst drivers, and then limit them to the automated cars? Testing? Special driver's license? I believe automated driving is going to be limited to certain very well-marked, limited access highways for a long time (decades, IMHO) before we ever get to level 5 autonomy.

Except for local emissions, hydrogen does not compete well with liquid fuels for transportation use cases--this effort is like rowing upstream against the wind in a leaky rowboat.

The EPR is the most baroque expression of the redundant engineered safety used by large PWR designs. The future of nuclear is smaller, simpler, passively safe, factory-built. See NuScale (SMR/PWR) and Terrestrial Energy (SMR/MSR). PWR = Pressurized Water Reactor MSR = Molten Salt Reactor SMR = Small Modular Reactor

What E-P said.

@E-P: Agree--nuclear baseload running full steam 24/7 (MSR) with molten salt thermal storage of night-time production could make for very economical electricity. The article is about home battery storage, something that is good for emergency backup but is probably an overly-expensive way to store grid surplus.

Makes sense--consider: 1. Carbon emissions from battery manufacture, shipping, installation, eventual disposal. These things are not required for a house to have power--they are additional infrastructure with their own carbon footprint. 2. As the study notes, existing monetary incentives for grid demand usage are not aligned with lowered-CO2 goals. If cheap, late night base load comes from coal, demand time-shifting is not desirable from a CO2 perspective. As others have noted, if base load is nuclear, the equation becomes more favorable.

Burning an existing carbon sink NOW, when it is critical to reduce carbon emissions, while promising to pull the carbon out by regrowing a forest LATER is a loser for the climate. Pure greenwashing. Per EP: nuclear is cleaner, safer, better in every way.

Striking that there is no mention of nuclear power, which has a very small environmental footprint.

@EP: Synthetic gasoline (or other liquid fuels) is a thing--you could make it with clean energy (nuclear, hydro, solar...). Liquid fuels have great advantages in density, storage, and being useable by the existing fleet.

Used vehicles are eligible--up to 8 years old with no more than 75K miles.