Long duration energy storage is necessary for a purely renewable grid.

Hydrogen is not a GHG.

They should just post-pone the PS6.

It is no more inefficient than many other ideas. Hydrogen is not much more difficult to store than natural gas. In reality, we have more than enough renewable energy to justify making and storing hydrogen.

The narrative of “batteries are progressing” is becoming wishful thinking if not outright delusion. They are not progressing in a way that could actually solve their fundamental problems. Hydrogen for energy storage is necessary for a 100% green grid, as well as many other things. We can make hydrogen close to the point of consumption too.

Hydrogen is a viable option in nearly every situation. And in many sectors, practically the only option.

Hydrogen pipelines are possible and have existed for decades.

It’s far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.

Africans will learn whichever languages gives them the best economic opportunities. That is still going to be English and will likely be so for a long time. The only realistic challenger will be Mandarin, but not for a long time.

The problems are mostly solved already. You wouldn’t use metals known for hydrogen embrittlement. Often times, you’d use something else, like HDPE or fiberglass that avoids this issue. Storage facilities can even be naturally occurring geological features, like salt caverns.

You would only use LH2 for specific cases, specifically where you are expected to use up the hydrogen quickly. But even this is changing, as self-refrigerating systems are being developed, allowing for very long-term LH2 storage.

We already can make hydrogen via electrolysis. This is a long-solved problem. Efficiency is not that relevant. The main limitation of batteries is that you simply cannot make enough of them. There are huge resource limitation problems. Meanwhile, hydrogen can be made from water and is effectively unlimited as a resource.

Militaries will switch to synthetic fuels or hydrogen. It is already doable, and expansion of production will make it cheap in the future.

The same applies for home hydrogen storage too. Compressed hydrogen is good for months. Another option would be metal hydrides which apparently last a long time too. The problem is that you simply cannot power your house entirely with batteries alone.

Even in tank form, you can store it for months. It is not much different than CNG.

Large-scale solutions matter too. The utility companies can utilize such a thing.

Underground caverns can store it for years. This is simply not true.

You would store it as a pressurized gas in this scenario. You would only use liquid hydrogen in specific situations.

Hydrogen can be stored for years.

It is almost certainly greener than using more fossil fuel. This is an idea that should be explored.

They are failing at basic editorial controls. This is not a “pretty good fucking job.” It is a sign of real decline.

It’s one of the stages of enshittification. Unless we see hard changes to avoid further decay, Ars will inevitably get worse and and worse until it does become an “internet rot site.”

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.

If you adopt hydrogen for energy storage, you no longer have to worry about “where.” You have a solution that is nearly geographically independent.

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.