With CO2 emitting option is priced out or banned, direct hydrogen production using high temperature sulfur–iodine cycle without H2 electrolysers could be economic option. The heat could be supplied from high temperature nuclear reactor.
"Material selection, simulation, and experimentation of sulfuric acid decomposition in a pilot-scale sulfur-iodine thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00162...
GP was talking about injecting the CO2 back into the well, not releasing it to the environment. There are even standards for specific injection wells used for long term storage (EPA Class VI).
Huh?
I’d be interested in hearing about some scenario where this actually costs less, given the cost of building anything nuclear in 2026.
"The low efficiency of PV-electrolyzer systems can be attributed to several factors: intrinsic losses in both the PV and electrolyzer units, energy consumption by balance-of-system components (e.g., inverters, thermal management), and, most critically, ineffective electrical coupling. Although some researchers advocate for direct coupling as a cost-effective solution, variable solar input remains a major challenge. Fluctuations in solar irradiance can cause the power delivered to fall outside the acceptable operating range of electrolyzers, leading to frequent shut-downs and start-ups. These cycling events can accelerate degradation, particularly in PEM electrolyzers, and also affect the purity and yield of hydrogen"
"Recent studies also highlight the integration of battery energy storage systems (BESS) into large-scale PV-CSP hybrid plants as a strategic enhancement. With anticipated declines in battery costs, this integrated approach may become increasingly viable in the near future."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44373-025-00080-4