The Case Against Hydrogen for Grid Storage Is Getting Stronger | Taha Abbasi

Every time someone critiques hydrogen as an energy storage medium, the same question resurfaces: if not hydrogen, where does long-duration storage come from? Taha Abbasi examines the growing body of evidence suggesting that the answer lies not in any single technology, but in a systems-level approach that may leave hydrogen on the sidelines.

The hydrogen energy debate has reached a critical inflection point. Proponents argue that hydrogen is essential for storing renewable energy over days, weeks, or even seasons — filling the gaps when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow for extended periods. Critics counter that hydrogen’s round-trip efficiency is so poor, and the infrastructure requirements so enormous, that cheaper alternatives will prevail. A recent CleanTechnica analysis argues the critics are winning this debate, and the data increasingly supports their position.

The Efficiency Problem

The fundamental challenge with hydrogen energy storage is thermodynamic efficiency. To store renewable energy as hydrogen, you must first use electricity to power an electrolyzer that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process is roughly 70-80% efficient under optimal conditions. You then need to compress or liquefy the hydrogen for storage (losing more energy), transport it (losing more), and finally convert it back to electricity through a fuel cell or combustion turbine (at 40-60% efficiency).

The net result is a round-trip efficiency of roughly 25-40% — meaning you lose 60-75% of the original renewable energy in the process. Compare this to battery storage systems like Tesla’s Megapack, which achieve round-trip efficiencies of 85-90%. For every kilowatt-hour of renewable energy you want to store and retrieve, batteries waste far less than hydrogen.

This efficiency gap translates directly to cost. If a solar panel generates a kilowatt-hour of electricity, storing it in a battery and retrieving it costs roughly 10-15% in losses. Storing it as hydrogen and retrieving it costs 60-75% in losses. You need two to three times as much renewable generation capacity to deliver the same amount of stored energy through hydrogen, which means two to three times the capital investment in solar panels, wind turbines, and associated infrastructure.

The Long-Duration Storage Question

Hydrogen proponents have a legitimate point: current lithium-ion batteries are optimized for short-duration storage, typically 2-4 hours. For multi-day or seasonal storage — protecting against extended periods of low renewable generation — batteries are impractical due to cost and energy density limitations.

However, as Taha Abbasi has reported, the long-duration storage landscape is evolving rapidly. Form Energy’s iron-air batteries promise 100-hour storage at dramatically lower cost than lithium-ion. Compressed air energy storage, gravity-based systems, and advanced flow batteries are all progressing. These technologies target the exact use case that hydrogen claims to serve, but with better efficiency and lower infrastructure requirements.

More fundamentally, the systems-level argument against hydrogen is that long-duration storage may not be needed as much as assumed. Grid interconnection — building high-capacity transmission lines that connect distant renewable resources — can smooth out regional weather variations far more cost-effectively than any storage technology. When the wind is not blowing in Texas, it may be blowing in the Dakotas or offshore in the Atlantic. Connecting these resources through a modern grid reduces the need for storage of any kind.

The Interconnection Alternative

A growing body of research suggests that investment in grid interconnection delivers far more value per dollar than investment in hydrogen storage infrastructure. High-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines can move renewable energy over thousands of miles with minimal losses — roughly 3% per 1,000 kilometers. Building a continent-spanning grid that connects diverse renewable resources can provide reliability through geographic diversity rather than massive storage capacity.

Europe is already pursuing this approach through its European electricity market integration and cross-border transmission investments. The United States, with its fragmented grid operated by multiple independent system operators, has enormous untapped potential for improved interconnection. Studies suggest that a more connected US grid could dramatically reduce the need for long-duration storage while improving reliability and lowering costs.

Where Hydrogen Might Still Win

None of this means hydrogen has no role in the energy transition. There are applications where hydrogen’s unique properties make it the best available option:

Industrial Processes: Steelmaking, ammonia production, and certain chemical processes require hydrogen as a feedstock, not just an energy carrier. Green hydrogen produced from renewable electricity can decarbonize these sectors where direct electrification is not feasible.

Heavy Transport: Long-haul shipping and possibly aviation may benefit from hydrogen-derived fuels (ammonia for ships, sustainable aviation fuel for aircraft) where battery weight and volume constraints make direct electrification impractical.

Remote Off-Grid Applications: In locations without grid access, hydrogen storage may be preferable to batteries for seasonal storage, particularly in extreme climates where battery performance degrades.

But for grid-scale electricity storage — the application that receives the most hype and the most policy support — Taha Abbasi believes the evidence increasingly favors batteries, interconnection, and demand response over hydrogen. The efficiency penalty is simply too large, the infrastructure requirements too extensive, and the alternatives improving too quickly.

The Policy Implications

The hydrogen debate has significant policy implications. Germany, in particular, has pushed aggressively for hydrogen mandates within the EU energy framework, including requirements for green hydrogen and synthetic fuels in the power and transport sectors. Critics argue these mandates are driven more by industrial policy — protecting Germany’s existing natural gas infrastructure and engineering expertise — than by objective analysis of the most cost-effective decarbonization pathways.

If hydrogen mandates direct investment toward an inefficient storage medium when better alternatives exist, the result could be higher electricity costs, slower decarbonization, and misallocation of capital that could have been spent on renewables, batteries, and grid infrastructure.

The Bigger Picture

The energy storage debate is ultimately about pragmatism versus ideology. Hydrogen has a compelling narrative — clean fuel, versatile energy carrier, the most abundant element in the universe. But narratives do not generate electrons. What generates electrons efficiently and affordably will ultimately win, regardless of how elegant the concept.

As Taha Abbasi sees it, the future energy grid will be built on a foundation of abundant renewable generation, efficient battery storage for short-duration needs, grid interconnection for geographic smoothing, and targeted hydrogen use only where alternatives cannot compete. The companies and countries that recognize this reality and invest accordingly will lead the energy transition. Those that bet too heavily on hydrogen may find themselves with stranded assets and lost time.

---

About the Author: Taha Abbasi is a technology executive, CTO, and applied frontier tech builder. Read more on Grokpedia | YouTube: The Brown Cowboy | tahaabbasi.com