[adrian_b]

You are right about metal-air batteries, but IIRC hydrogen-air ideal efficiency is still significantly lower than the ideal efficiency for carbon-air (using fuel cells with solid carbon) or metal-air batteries.

You are also right about synthetic hydrocarbons. The extra hydrocarbon synthesis step lowers the total efficiency, compared with using hydrogen.

Nevertheless, the lower efficiency is more than compensated by the simpler methods used for storage and handling, which require much less expensive materials and a much lower volume and total mass.

The benefits of using hydrocarbons for long-term energy storage have been amply demonstrated by the living beings that have been using this method for billions of years, many of which can easily achieve an autonomy of months without eating, while doing activities that would make a present-time robot using batteries inoperational after a few hours at most.

[Hypx_]

As I understand, the byproduct of a carbon-air cell is carbon dioxide. This doesn't mean such a cell can't make sense, but it has some fundamental downsides that are hard to mitigate. It will requirement a very specific form of carbon capture where the result is hard carbon for such cells to make sense.

That might be partially true. Especially in the case of hydrogen-to-ammonia where the process of conversion is much more straightforward. However, storing hydrogen in salt caverns for years at a time is already proven. So further conversion steps might not prove any real value except where volume of storage is important.