Europe would use hydrogen for seasonal leveling, not batteries. Vastly superior, even with the much lower round trip efficiency. Europe has petawatt-hours of hydrogen storage capacity in salt formations.
In science fiction books, yes. But in the real world Germany has spent hundreds of billions over a decade in renewables while phasing out nuclear, and yet they are still very far from full renewable (they haven't even over the “easy” phase of the transition)
Ah, so "it hasn't been done yet, therefore it can't be done" is a valid argument? We might as well stop talking about SMRs then.
Germany has not tried to roll out hydrogen yet. CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling.
Also, a big part of Germany's large expenditure was in 2009-2012 when solar (in particular) was far more expensive. Funny how you didn't mention that, isn't it.
> CO2 charges are not yet at the point where natural gas must stop being used for long period leveling.
During that period, Germany has emitted more CO2 than hundreds of millions of peoole, and we're way past the moment where we should have stopped using coal and gas really.
> Also, a big part of Germany's large expenditure was in 2009-2012 when solar (in particular) was far more expensive. Funny how you didn't mention that, isn't it.
And why hasn't Germany completed the transition now that “solar is dirt cheap” for years now, then? Solar makes no sense in Europe, period. Wind, hydro and nuclear, yes, but every solar panel installed in non-mediteranean European country has been a tragic waste of taxpayer's money (giving the panels to Greece or Arab/African countries would have been a much better investment, by an order of magnitude)
Germany's problem is they are hopelessly tied to fossil fuels. Any replacement (nuclear or renewable) would crater their heavy industry. Northern Europe is not a place for heavy industry in a post-fossil fuel world economy; they are at a grave disadvantage compared to sunnier locations closer to the equator.
That's why nuclear is interesting there. Unless you're asking Europe to just accept being phased out of industrial economy without doing anything to avoid that…
The point I was making was that nuclear doesn't help. Germany is dependent on fossil fuels, and nuclear is not a drop-in, equal cost replacement for fossil fuels.
For Germany to be saved from this fate by nuclear, nuclear has to be as cheap as solar is in the best locations in the world, not just better than solar in Germany.
Germany (and Europe) should probably be putting more money into CO2 sequestration, so they can keep burning fossil fuels.
