3 ms·

So you didn't answered my question regarding your sources. Here's mine: - The technology to convert power to hydrogen and back to power has a round-trip effici

So you didn't answered my question regarding your sources. Here's mine: - The technology to convert power to hydrogen and back to power has a round-trip efficiency of 18%-46%, according to data that Flora presented from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and scientific journal Nature Energy. In comparison, two mature long-duration technologies, pumped-storage hydropower and compressed air energy storage, boast round-trip efficiencies of 70%-85% and 42%-67%, respectively. Flow batteries, a rechargeable fuel cell technology that is less mature, have a round-trip efficiency of 60%-80%. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/podcasts/451-research-episode-49 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... - https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydroge...

pfdietz 5y ago
You will notice that 46% > 30%, so you have confirmed my statement and contradicted your own. Thanks! I hope you were assuming a combined cycle power plant was being used to turn the hydrogen back to power, not a simple cycle turbine only 2/3rds as efficient. There are other storage technologies with higher efficiencies, but they also have much higher cost per kWh of storage capacity. On that metric batteries are like two orders of magnitude more expensive than hydrogen (flow batteries somewhat better but still much worse than hydrogen.) In storage use cases where it is appropriate (seasonal, rare event backup), hydrogen is hard to beat.