People are going with batteries and demand-shifting first because they’re more cost-effective when it comes to dealing with a few hours of storage. Hydrogen storage is mostly a contender for longer-durarion storage
For a few hours, yes, but that will make up a small percentage of total energy stored. To really solve the intermittency problem, you will need large scale energy storage.
You do need some amount of long-duration storage, with the amount depending on how generation diversity and how much clean firm generation you have, but we are still in the early stages of it.
Depends a lot on where. Places with a lot of both wind and solar need a lot less than those with only one, or with big seasonal heating needs. Way more to say about this than can fit in a comment
Not really; there are real reasons people don’t want large-scale storage near populated areas, and it’s more expensive than avoiding the need for long-duration storage, and burning it (if you don’t store the oxygen, which raises costs even more) produces lung-damage nitrogen oxides. So there’s a lot of reasons to minimize the need for hydrogen as much as possible.
Those are outright lies. For one thing, you can use fuel cells instead of gas turbines, getting rid of NOx emissions entirely (not to mention you can filter out NOx even with gas turbines).
Sorry, but this conversation cannot continue if you proceed with dishonest arguments.
People are going with batteries and demand-shifting first because they’re more cost-effective when it comes to dealing with a few hours of storage. Hydrogen storage is mostly a contender for longer-durarion storage
For a few hours, yes, but that will make up a small percentage of total energy stored. To really solve the intermittency problem, you will need large scale energy storage.
You do need some amount of long-duration storage, with the amount depending on how generation diversity and how much clean firm generation you have, but we are still in the early stages of it.
The more renewable energy you have, the more you need long-duration energy storage. You cannot reach 100% renewable energy without huge amounts of it.
Depends a lot on where. Places with a lot of both wind and solar need a lot less than those with only one, or with big seasonal heating needs. Way more to say about this than can fit in a comment
If you adopt hydrogen for energy storage, you no longer have to worry about “where.” You have a solution that is nearly geographically independent.
Not really; there are real reasons people don’t want large-scale storage near populated areas, and it’s more expensive than avoiding the need for long-duration storage, and burning it (if you don’t store the oxygen, which raises costs even more) produces lung-damage nitrogen oxides. So there’s a lot of reasons to minimize the need for hydrogen as much as possible.
Those are outright lies. For one thing, you can use fuel cells instead of gas turbines, getting rid of NOx emissions entirely (not to mention you can filter out NOx even with gas turbines).
Sorry, but this conversation cannot continue if you proceed with dishonest arguments.