Quote (balrog66 @ 28 May 2019 11:20)
I can understand your frustration with the "money shouldn't be a problem" argument. But where utilities do not dare touch nuclear even though they have permission, they are voluntarily investing in other renewables. And it's not like other energy generating sources have not been subsidized in history! Many (nuclear) power plants were funded by large with government money.
On the hydrogen: We're still gonna need those batteries, no question. The hydrogen would simply be used as centralized energy storage, with a well defined security perimeter etc. Hydrogen storage on a consumer level is a huge wasp nest and nono. Not only are you dealing with pressure vessels containing tens to hundreds of bar of Hydrogen, there's also the problem that Hydrogen is way more of a hazard than gasoline or even methane. Fuel load sized pressure vessels in cars are never going to happen. Using renewables to generate hydrogen in a centralized location to offset variance in power generation is a decent solution to the problems that many renewables currently pose.
well, they pretty much have to do that since there isnt much left when nuclear and fossil power are out of the question
i dont like the idea of forced investments, its the death of innovation
but from the example of germany i can tell that for every bit we have invested into renewables, we invested into conventional back up/reserve
thats basically paying for two supply systems at the same time, which brings us back to the money argument
we will see about hydrogen tanks, i am well aware how dangerous it can possibly be
however since electrical cars we never get us anywhere in my opinion you dont have many alternatives except hydrogen and synthetic bio fuel