I see what they are getting at. My initial thoughts are: 1. There will be considerable losses in storage. Evaporation in LNG tankers is around 0.05-0.1% of the

I see what they are getting at. My initial thoughts are: 1. There will be considerable losses in storage. Evaporation in LNG tankers is around 0.05-0.1% of their cargo capacity per day. This is around the same as the self discharge rate for Li ion batteries, which have higher cycle efficiencies. 2. The claim could be that the overall cost of complex liquefaction equipment to use up a little bit of energy per day over say summer months combined with large relatively simple storage tanks to hold the liquified air until say winter could be cheaper than having very large batteries. This is possible... but: 3. This would have to compete with for example production of hydrogen by hydrolysis, which would be cheaper, easier to store, and have similar cycle efficiencies. Finally: Consider that none of the current LNG import terminals attempt to extract energy from the re-gasification of liquified gas. This seems to be the low hanging fruit of liquified air technology, but it is not economically attractive. So I sincerely doubt that the described scheme would make economic sense.