> I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently aro

> I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. From your number for hydrogen, I suppose batteries make more sense for "typical" variance, while hydrogen makes more sense for unusual periods of downtime (rain in the desert, more than 2-3 days without ANY wind). Also, it would make sense if most of the electrolysis would be performed in areas with high random variance in electricity production (typically wind). As you say, nuclear will have an advantage for longer in areas with highly seasonal variance. One advantage of hydrogen, though, is that it is relatively easy to transport to where it is needed. Still, by combining our numbers, it seems to me like for projects starting today, Nuclear is still competitive to, if not outright cheaper than renewables, if the goal is 100% carbon-free power within 10-20 years. Breakthroughs in battery production (or hydrogen production, but less likely), might change that. But then again, if Nuclear was built with enough volume, minimal corruption and with a rational balancing of cost/risk, the cost of nuclear should also come back down quite a bit. I definitely think it should be possible to reach levelized costs well under $0.1/kwh if contracts are given to international construction/operations companies able to utilize economies of scale.