> then compressing the H2 to 700 bars consumes 30% of the stored energy, then you must add distribution and transport (and mostly can't use the huge, existing g

> then compressing the H2 to 700 bars consumes 30% of the stored energy, then you must add distribution and transport (and mostly can't use the huge, existing gas transportation infrastructure). I recall reading somewhere that (in some/many countries) existing gas infrastructure is already specified to tolerate a meaningful (if small) fraction of H2 in the mix and that this fraction isn't currently maxed out, implying that it could be used as a sink for a quite sizable amount of new H2 production capacity as is. Background: historically the network was designed to tolerate a much higher H2 fraction because the initial gas source was a conversion process from coal that happened to yield a H2 fraction considerably higher than what is currently distributed. So as long as conventional gas use continues you'd have zero storage problem for new H2 production until the existing tolerance limit is maxed out. Only switching to anything close to 100% H2 would be a storage/distribution problem. Bonus implication: retooling existing infrastructure back to tolerate that old, higher H2 fraction would be considerably (orders of magnitude) easier than building a network for pure H2. I still share your main view, that there tends to be too much hype for H2. E.g. be wary of people who use an imminent "H2 future" as an argument to abandon all other projects. But that doesn't negate the value of real-life H2 projects at all: chances are we won't satisfy easy H2 use cases any time soon and the things that would make difficult/impossible H2 use cases difficult/impossible shouldn't be used as arguments against production until the easy use cases appear in reach to getting saturated.