"As the history of the solar cell has shown so clearly, the development of events can easily differ from forecasts made on the basis of insufficient information."
He ran an energy model with built-in learning curves and showed that with exactly the same model (same equations, all same data inputs, costs, etc.) you can get radically different energy pathways with similar total costs:
I'd also be interested in the question posed the other way round: what is the value of "firm" clean generation in the presence of VRE, batteries and long-term storage?
E.g. how much does system cost reduce by adding nuclear/CCS etc. to wind+solar+batteries+hydrogen.
Either way, the system costs of all these options is in a similar ball park, which throws up the question:
What do we actually want?
What can we build quickly, with wide public approval?
- end of coal
- efficiency
- electrification
- renewables (he developed first hydro power)
- open data
- technological learning ("tendency of progress is to quicken progress")
Electrolysis was also the means of making heavy water (D2O), a neutron moderator, from its discovery in the 1930s until the GS process replaced it in the mid-1940s.
Heavy water was crucial for making the atomic bomb.
This made electrolysis of great military importance in WWII.