Any of these criticisms you levy against H2 would by extension also apply to iron, only more so. > It is quite energy intensive to produce it We're talking ab

Any of these criticisms you levy against H2 would by extension also apply to iron, only more so. > It is quite energy intensive to produce it We're talking about a cycle that is supposed to store and release energy. "Quite energy intensive to produce" would be a plus in this context. It would matter though if it was inefficient to produce, which is not the case. On top of all that, H2 is actually a part of the proposed iron cycle system. > and currently is produced from oil & gas products It would obviously not be produced from oil and gas products in the case we're discussing here. If you're going to have an H2 cycle, it makes zero sense not to start with water. > but if you're going to do that, it turns out that just using the electricity is almost always more efficient. As far as I'm aware, the iron cycle system also does not claim to produce energy in order to compete with solar or wind. It claims to be a good and portable storage solution. Thermodynamics absolutely assures that any such system will always be less efficient than using the electricity right away. It is absolutely ridiculous to use an argument of inefficiency against an H2 cycle system while speaking in favor of an even more complex other cycle system!