Len, do the wild-eyed fantasies you predict for your "energy transition" have any basis in physics, electrical engineering, or history?

I suggest you learn from the failure of Germany's Energiewende - then take some time off, maybe perform some introspection. The only grid-wide example of an attempt to realize your vision has been an exorbitantly expensive, resounding flop - as power engineers knew it would from the very beginning:

"The decision to shut down its nuclear plants prematurely means Germany has to keep its massive fleet of lignite and hard coal power plants on the grid far into the future. Germany is already failing its 2020 emission-reduction targets, and there is currently no indication that it will do much better in the future. Far from advancing decarbonisation, the Energiewende has locked Germany into long-term carbon dependency.”

You might consider heeding the advice of experts instead of uninformed ideologues. The sad truth is "renewable" energy will never wean us from fossil fuels - and we don't have much more time to waste.

Len, that's the opposite of the renewable future as seen by the US NREL.  They have modelled the cost of varous system components, combined it with detailed US hourly weather maps, and used that computer model to estimate the amount of wind and solar generation, long distance transmission, storage, etc that get built, using various assumed renewables mandates.

What NREL finds is that storage never gets big (even when they assumed a very low cost for batteries), and transmission continues to get bigger!  Economies of scale applies to transmission lines: a 10 GW line costs only somewhat more than a 1 GW line, plus the bigger line is more energy efficient.

Solar PV obviously works well with storage, but windpower does not.  The windpower highs and lows are less regular, with fewer on/off cycles per year (favoring gas peakers over batteries).  The more windfarms are interconnected, the less pronounced the highs and low, due to averaging and decorrelation, so again less need for storage.

I haven't seen NREL's projections for hydrogen production, but assuming it goes big, it will eat into the market for storage too.  Assuming the hydrogen producers pay for electricity (off-peak pricing obviously), there will be fewer times of zero priced electricity, therefore industry will build more windpower, which means fewer hours that storage can sell power for high prices.  Fewer hours per year means that gas peakers get more attractive compared to batteries.

By the way, the hydrogen that gets made with off-peak electricity will go to high value markets like fertilizer production and zero-carbon marine fuel, not electricity production.  We'll still use fossil gas for that, but maybe with CC&S if there's a carbon price.  So the nuclear-rich grid will always be cleaner, as the nukes have less need for fossil fuel to fill in the gaps.

Microgrids are a great way for people in rich neighborhoods to maintain high quality power when the main power company is underfunded.  But big grids are way more cost effective for the general public.  We did this experiment 100 years ago, and big grids won.  Whether the grid has PV+batteries or thermal generators, the man-power to run it and the reserve requirement gets cheaper (per unit energy) with economies of scale.  Even windturbines get better with size; 1 MW machines were popular just a few years ago, now 2-3 MW is typical.