2 ms·
The issue is that hydrogen makes no sense except for transportation fuel, where it also makes no sense. There are other options for stationary energy storage, a
by XorNot 3y ago
The issue is that hydrogen makes no sense except for transportation fuel, where it also makes no sense. There are other options for stationary energy storage, and hydrogen is amongst the worst. i.e. if we can tolerate high losses, iron-air flow batteries are a much more reasonable option[1]
The thing is you pay for all of that pretty heavily - it's all more expensive with other drawbacks, but it's not nearly the complete pain that handling hydrogen is.
[1] https://essinc.com/iron-flow-chemistry/ https://essinc.com/iron-flow-chemistry/
- elproxy 3y agoYup, or things like sulphur thermal storage[1]. Also, hydrogen is pushed heavily by the fossil fuel industry, as it will provide another out for all their methane reserves (via steam reforming). [1]https://www.solarpaces.org/why-solar-sulphur-cycle-ideal-seasonal-thermal-energy-storage/ https://www.solarpaces.org/why-solar-sulphur-cycle-ideal-sea...
- pfdietz 3y agoFor long term energy storage, minimizing the capital cost of energy storage capacity is paramount. Round trip efficiency is not. On that relevant metric, hydrogen is very hard to beat, particularly if proper geology is available (salt formations for solution mined storage cavities). Costs less than $1/kWh are possible. Artificially heated geothermal may be competitive on that metric, but its RTE is likely to be even lower.