newshound snipped-for-privacy@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote
>> TimW wrote
>>> newshound wrote
>>>> TimW wrote
>>>>> newshound wrote
>
>>>>>>formatting link>>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What? You have to make, and store the hydrogen, and then run it
>>>> through fuel cells or burn it in a CCGT. What is this if not a back-up? >>>>
>>> The context was either storage, like batteries or backup electricity
>>> generation like a coal station. Hydrogen is storage.
>>
>> Hydrogen is storage of *energy*, not of electricity. You can only turn
>> it into electricity with hardware, that you only need when the sun is
>> not shining and the wind is not blowing.
>
> But its still a stupid alternative to nukes.
>
> That?s what I meant about Ridley's s*it, he doesn?t really have a > f****ng clue.
I agree completely, and so does Ridley. I was responding to the point that Ridley said that renewables require backup and someone else said he was wrong, because they only require storage (such as hydrogen). And I said that the plant to use that hydrogen *was* backup.
I very much doubt that this will ever make economic sense, but that does depend on political decisions. Your compatriots have always been dead against nuclear power, even though you are probably the best country in the world to provide long term storage of nuclear waste.
Very happy to see them buying nuclear subs, though.