I didn't reject future hydrogen gas turbines. In fact, I'm the one who brought them up. That's the entire point I'm making: hydrogen gas turbines are still in development. If hydrogen gas turbines already exist, why are GE, Siemens, and others talking about how they plan to develop hydrogen gas turbines by 2030 or 2040? They're not off the shelf technology, because they aren't even on the shelf yet.
Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.
Gas turbines that can run at 90% hydrogen and have existed for decades, still doesn't count as "existing" for you. And you still are pretending that steam power plants running on hydrogen don't exist.
The fundamental problem is that you have created an argument that's so up your own asshole that it doesn't sense, and if applied to anything else nothing is green. All because you can't admit you were wrong. Everything else you're saying is just a red herring.
> Im going to bed now, and I should have realized I was being trolled much sooner.
You're projecting again.
We want more energy per person in the future.
Stable energy is required to make industry sustainable.
Stable 'free' energy allows you to do really cool new things (like melt trash for resources?)
Waste & environmental impact is negligible compared to fossil fuels.
A nation needs to agree to the risk/reward of a nuclear power plant, it must be owned and payed for primarily by the government.
Having a country/state that offers free energy will pay itself back easily. Cost should not be an issue, 20 % of GDP should be on the table. ( Money is made up, Jules are real ).
Solar and wind are mostly done innovating. Nuclear has a relatively clear path of improvements ahead in terms of $/joule.
Storage based on hydrogen or thermal are too inefficient and don't scale well enough to power homes and industries during the winter.
Any comments are welcome.
We have petawatt-hours worth of storage capacity.