Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

And now comes the crux. For the individual, it is of course an advantage to have photovoltaics. I also assume that in the summer half-year we will basically manage without grid supply. However, for the system as a whole, these intensified and strongly correlated fluctuations cannot be good. The enormous effort required to compensate for these fluctuations is, of course, not visible to the end customer. And it will not get better if we want to generate less electricity from gas and at the same time phase out coal and nuclear power. Storing electricity is difficult, especially on a large scale. The best we have so far are pumped storage plants, and there is limited capacity for further expansion. Everything else is not really market-ready and probably will not be in the next 10 years. For me, this is a commons problem. The individual picks the cherries (solar power when the sun shines) and leaves the problem of producing electricity at night or during dark doldrums to the general public.

What speaks against converting excess electricity and storing it in the form of hydrogen?

In summer I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, it will look completely different in winter. Only when you take stock in March can you make a statement about the benefit. In winter, after work, there is no more sun where you could still charge your car, and you will have to buy electricity expensively from the grid...

A hydrogen industry that could, for example, supply BASF in Ludwigshafen in large quantities would cost something around 500 to 800 billion. The solar radiation and the necessary area for this would be available in northern Africa to develop such an infrastructure there. Then the hydrogen would have to be carbonized. The methane or ethane produced that way can then also be transported in pipelines, which is not technically and economically easily possible with hydrogen.

A hydrogen industry that could supply BASF in Ludwigshafen quantitatively, for example, would cost something around 500 to 800 billion. The solar radiation and the necessary area would be available in North Africa to develop such an infrastructure there. Then the hydrogen would have to be carbonized. The methane or ethane produced in this way can then also be transported in pipelines, which is not technically and economically easily possible with hydrogen.

Problem one with this story: transferring 800 billion to Libya or Morocco and creating dependencies, the next Gaddafi would quickly have his hand back on the valve.

Problem two: from one kWh of photovoltaic electricity, about 0.2 kWh of gaseous energy is produced. Here in this country, it is converted back into electricity with a gas power plant with about 60% efficiency.

Hydrogen has been hyped for 15 years, but it will never be able to establish itself as a significant energy supply...