Your rhetoric is decades out of date. We can easily store hydrogen in vast quantity at very low cost. If anything, you are spread an old oil & gas talking point. According to them, nothing except fossil fuels is storable.
The problem with storing hydrogen is related to the nature of the hydrogen atom being one proton and one electron… I don’t see how that could be “out of date”… the relatively free nature of the protons makes them particularly damaging because they can slip into and break up the structure of almost any material you might try to contain them with.
We can easily store hydrogen in vast quantity at very low cost.
I would be very interested to read a source for this.
If anything, you are spread an old oil & gas talking point. According to them, nothing except fossil fuels is storable.
Not really. It’s funny that you’re trying to paint me as a shill for fossil fuels, when the alternative storage system I recommended is (again) pumped hydroelectric, which has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
Modern tanks leak very little. Large underground cavern stores even at very low cost. You are just out of date on your information.
It doesn’t matter what you think you are advocating for. Your rhetoric is basically just oil & gas propaganda. At best, you can accept that you were fooled by it.
You clearly don’t yourself, since tanks are made of carbon fiber. Embrittlement is very alloy dependent too. Choose the right alloy and it is a non-issue.
There are vast quantities of suitable underground caverns. It gives many orders of magnitude more storage capacity than any other idea, including pump hydro (which is significantly more geographically limited).
Your rhetoric is decades out of date. We can easily store hydrogen in vast quantity at very low cost. If anything, you are spread an old oil & gas talking point. According to them, nothing except fossil fuels is storable.
Ehm… rhetoric?..
The problem with storing hydrogen is related to the nature of the hydrogen atom being one proton and one electron… I don’t see how that could be “out of date”… the relatively free nature of the protons makes them particularly damaging because they can slip into and break up the structure of almost any material you might try to contain them with.
I would be very interested to read a source for this.
Not really. It’s funny that you’re trying to paint me as a shill for fossil fuels, when the alternative storage system I recommended is (again) pumped hydroelectric, which has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
Modern tanks leak very little. Large underground cavern stores even at very low cost. You are just out of date on your information.
It doesn’t matter what you think you are advocating for. Your rhetoric is basically just oil & gas propaganda. At best, you can accept that you were fooled by it.
Lmao your comment and smugness is so ironic
I don’t think you understand how embrittlement works, or what the problem is. Define “very little”, and over how long of a lifespan?
Well, that’s not very reliable for setting up grid storage is it? I mean, you have to have a suitable cavern.
Still waiting on some sources… so far you haven’t provided any information, only opinions.
You clearly don’t yourself, since tanks are made of carbon fiber. Embrittlement is very alloy dependent too. Choose the right alloy and it is a non-issue.
There are vast quantities of suitable underground caverns. It gives many orders of magnitude more storage capacity than any other idea, including pump hydro (which is significantly more geographically limited).
It’s sad that you claim knowledge, but you can’t be bothered to google it. There are many studies out there like this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223028481