What I'm adding here is not miraculous new battery technology. It's hydrogen for long term storage. All the components of that exist and are proven. It's just a matter of integrating them. This is the most reliable and easiest kind of innovation, and it's the death knell for nuclear.
(1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade,
(2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk,
(3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation.
Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant.
> All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup.
Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
And you have not refuted the explanation I gave for why there was not a deployment yet. That explanation is why the argument you are sticking to there is nonsense.
Your last question there has the answer "because the cost of CO2 in Europe is not high enough yet." Hydrogen doesn't make sense until natural gas is quite expensive, but even then a renewable system with hydrogen will be cheaper than a CO2-free system with fully costed nuclear.
Are you employed by the nuclear industry, by any chance? If so, if you aren't too old, run do not walk to another career.
