Yes, at $1/Kg, H2 could be the ideal storage medium for excess/surplus REs, Hydro and Nuke energy.

Stored and distributed H2 could also be used competitively for current and future all weather, all size, FCEVs

I have a problem with H2@scale, quite simply I believe that it is the wrong approach.

Hydrogen on board the EV or on-site in the case of Off-grid houses.

HyPulJet.2.0 is being assessed by a UK University to validate the engine in order that the development of the prototype engine and adapt a four wheel drive vehicle to EV as a Proof of Concept EV.

There are three UK Patent Applications covering the engine-generator, the original Patent Application was voided by the USPTO because someone else had made two previous filings using the GB 14 number assigned to my Ro Engine. Even though one filing was dated Sept 2013 USPTO did not investigate why someone would enter a date of filing 4 months before 2014 when GB 14 numbers were assigned.

The 2nd filing had two names on it My name and the name of another person, USPTO would not provide any information.

When I filed a Freedom of Information Request, I was lied to by the Legal department, its a long story.

Message to the DOE "There is innovation being forced through because government funding is stifled and so it will be Crowd funding, these instances of innovation will not need H2 infrastructure. Mine may well be the first but when people see there are ways around the issues I expect more people to look for different ways.

DOE you will also find a mention of HyPulJet,2.0 in messages to the White House and the President.

There are literally hundreds of utility level battery backup systems coming online right now. This is going to be a race to see which one becomes more economically viable first and the batteries have a huge lead.

I don't see that changing as the batteries are picking up speed and dropping prices quickly with deployments ongoing already.

DaveD:

I am not sure why you are trying to create an opposition between fuel cells and batteries.

They have different characteristics and are employed in different contexts, just as capacitors, batteries, and generators are at the moment.

For instance in data centres fuel cells can do things batteries can't, for instance providing power all the time as well as with their high reliability providing back up if the grid goes down, and incidentally enabling atmospheric control so that the level of oxygen can be reduced enough to prevent fire, but still be perfectly breathable.

The largest grid connected fuel cell is in South Korea, and is 59MW, so it is not exactly tiny:

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-22/issue-7/features/fuel-cell-power-scales-up.html

The engineers can use batteries where appropriate and fuel cells where appropriate.

Neither technology is going to go away.

If you want really large scale energy storage, you need to use hydrogen as well as batteries, as the DOE thoroughly documents.

I really don't understand why some seem to have a thing against fuel cells.

It is rather like not being keen on gravity, and trying to have as little as possible to do with it.

EHE,

All story is in your figures. At $0.022/kWh you can do whatever with electricity. Particularly you can charge Tesla with 90kWh for $2 and drive 300 miles instead of producing hydrogen, filling car 2 kg liquid H2 and driving only 100 miles.
Hydrogen madness is simply waste of energy and money. Those charts are something outrages and calculations for CO2 reduction are simply fake. This stuff has DOE mark and will influence US policy - unbelievable!!!

Too many posters seems to (voluntary) ignore that:

1) H2 is a very good long time energy storage, as good if not better than very costly batteries.

2) H2 can feed FCEVs of all sizes for extended range in all kind of weather and conditions.

3) FCEVs supply free cabin heat to keep passengers from freezing.

4) Nissan and others will soon build mobile FCs with appropriate converters using bio-fuels and existing infrastructures for extended range cars and trucks.

I always though Bush gave more money to alt fuels AND BEVs than any president before him. (I thought the tax credit program was announced under him, so wealthy people could drive more costly and more net CO2 generating EVs and Hybrids?)

and DaveD, are you for a lithium based economy? We have about 250 years worth of known fossil fuel reserves. We only have a few decades of practical lithium. I think the known reserves would net like 2 billion decent ev cars(like model 3), if that's all we used it for. Likely we'd continue to use cell phones and other things like laptops, then there would be demands from the commercial /industrial sector. Lithium production, and the reserves will be stretched thin.

I'm not saying EVs are bad, just not feasible on a global scale. Lack of supply, cost, and packaging restraints will limit it severely.

A hydrogen economy would make it economically feasible to open a nuclear reactor (or several). The infrastructure is there for hydrogen transport in most major cities (natural gas lines), it give a great sink for excess renewables, and could keep base load powerplants busy (not to have them shutter or otherwise go broke being on standby. It can greatly enable renewables, a dispatchable load when needed.

Even if 1kg of hydrogen was $6 in this imaginary hydrogen economy, it would still be comparable to gasoline/diesel prices of today. So if $0.13/kwh or $.09/kwh for energy (if you included a 30% margin for profit/cost) isn't too bad... its definitely marketable to power companies.

Every FC vehicle would likely be a plug in.... if every FC had 50 miles of range and use the FC as an extender only, you'd have your goal of possible green society quicker. Odds of getting the BEV only mantra into every size truck and car is a near impossible feat, even with future technologies its a very pale outlook.

In 2015 (and many other previous years) we sold $1,000,000,000+ worth of very low cost (under $0.04/kWh) clean Hydro Electricity to Eastern United States. A high percentage of that clean exported electricity was not used and could have been used to produce low cost clean H2 but it was not due to lower cost NG?

It seems obvious that new regulations are required in USA to give priority to clean REs over not so clean NG to produce H2. Since $$ are Kings of the Land, a pollution tax on NG would be required to even the playing field.