humanspiral

I don't know that processing silicon is a polluting activity. There is heat involved, and some Chinese producers are 100% solar powered for their processing. Though I'm sure bulldozers or shipps/trucks are involved in obtaining sand.

I'm not a fan of any appeals to gatekeep energy use to "just essentials" instead permitting growth that people want, and cleaning up the energy use involved.

The peace proposal is for largely Russian speaking/ethnic regions of former Ukraine to stay Russian after their recent liberation.

The difference is that the electrolysis can be done at producer convenience. Sometimes wholesale electricity prices (midday due to high solar penetration) are negative or ultra cheap. Transporting H2, even by truck, can be cheaper than the US typical 8c/kwh electric transmission charge. For many areas, enough solar in winter has 3x more summer production and essentially unusable. A balance of solar and H2 produced in summer, can provide the cheapest necessary energy for winter. An alternative is summer exports with winter imports.

Batteries alone are also subject to curtailment, or not enough charging in winter. H2 can be stored at $1/kwh, where a pipeline is free transmission of withdrawals different from deposit locations. The energy efficiency round trip is less important than the $ efficiency of energy delivery.

but whatever damages russia can only be seen as a boon for humanity.

Yes, I too get $1 trickled down everytime Russia loses $1. My life is invested in the high oil prices since the war started, and I hope more services are cut so that more can be spent to diminish Russia. I'm sure the US will win a nuclear war too, so everything will be worth it. Saying this, helps make sure I get a spot in the VIP nuclear bunkers when the Fallout Boy reality will surely just get us to support the rulership of those who destroyed the US.

There is alternative to MAD. Nuking US ships and foreign military bases, is not missiles headed to US, and doesn't trigger 6000 missiles back. It is only launching 1000+ ICBMs that triggers MAD response, and US destroyed, btw.

The expense part gets taken care of with OP's solar prices. Battery costs help too.

The case for an H2 economy is one entirely based on Green H2 made from surplus renewables which are needed most days to have enough renewable energy every day.

That gas companies know how to build pipelines, distribution, and make metered gas sales to customers is a path for them/employees to remain useful without destroying the planet.

Commercial vehicles has legitimate benefits of lower cost from H2 FCs than batteries. Quicker refuel times. Aviation especially benefits from redesigning planes for H2 for the weight savings. Trains/ships need the power/range. Trucks/cars can use the range extension, and could use H2 as removable auxiliary power for extended range.

Those vehicles can also charge the grid, and as hybrids, EVs or grid can be charged from static H2 FCs. For building energy, a FC can provide the usual fraction of domestic hot water from its waste heat. The electric monopoly problem is an opportunity for both producers and consumers to bypass their high rates and fees. Ammonia and fertilizer is traditional use for H2. There needs to be a carbon tax to move away from giant fosil H2 plants powering next door giant ammonia/fertilizer plants.

Hydrogen electrolysis is just one form of electro chemistry. Other fertilizers can be made from simpler versions of the process. It's not so much that H2 is essential in unlimited quantities, it is that electro chemistry is possible ultra cheaply when there is an abundance of renewables that provides enough energy every day to power their locality. H2 is special as a chemical for being transportable/convertable as mobile or other elecricity/heat.

HVDC is much more expensive than Hydrogen pipelines, which doubles as storage and transmission, and can provide continent wide resilience, even when local renewables provide much cheaper power when it is available than either long distance electric or H2 power.

there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it’s fuel

Those are less competitive, and salt reactor attempts have historically caused terminating corrosion problems. The SMR "promise" relies on switching extremely expensive/rare/dangerous plutonium level enriched fuel, that rely on traditional reactors for enrichment, for slightly lower capital costs.

And cheaper solar and batteries permits cheaper Hydrogen which provides unlimited and 100% resilient renewable power, and still cheaper than nuclear.

Batteries can be containerized in modules, with a turnkey connection that remains mobile. Solar can use those containers as support structure. Hydrogen electrolyzer/fuel cells can also be built in same containers.