Craig, again you are looking at this in terms of profit. We have to get profit out of our heads to see beyond it. Solar has no cost at all, when all is weighed up, because it is the only energy that can be used at no cost at to the planet, actually the opposite, all use of it adds to the planet. We are happy to identify when oil went negative priced, but still not happy to accept negative cost means benefit. Why do you think that is?

Every kg of hydrogen created from solar is 39kWhrs removed from the heating energy of sunlight applied to the thermal mass of the planet. This is cooling, not heating. This is creation, not destruction. And it's regardless of efficiency.

How can monetisation of creation ever be something expensive compared with monetised destruction?

Solar indexed stimulus has to be issued, to monetise the energy of sunlight, this is what plants do, in response to the energy received by their leaves, they issue nutrients, which is their way of abstracting energy. Nutrients are abstracted energy in the plant world, money is abstracted energy in the world of humans.

Imagine a plant that failed to issue nutrients in response to the energy received by its leaves - it would not last even a few days.

How do we think we can get by without doing our own version of that?

In any case, money will continue to devalue until it's done.