There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negati

There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. These plant cannot be turned on and off quickly ebnough to not produce this excess electricity, and because the grid must remain balanced (all the production must be immediately met by demand) they have to pay people to take the electricity off their hands because it's the cheapest option for them. Solar and wind you can simply turn off, they do not have to pay peopel to take excess energy off their hands since they can simply choose not to make it. Adding solar and wind will cause negative rates to occur, but it is not the solar and wind that are paying those negative values, it is the gas/coal/nuclear. If you are buying electricity at a negative rate you are helping out a fossil fuel plant (or if your lucky a nuclear one). > it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Nope. Equipment still has a cost, no matter how many times you ignore it. As for who is fixated, and/or brainwashed. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.