> If the energy is basically free which under certain circumstances (lots of wind) could happen, does it matter how inefficient it is?
There are two sides to this cost: energy production, and storage.
The part which is argued to be essentially free is the production, which is not synchronized with energy consumption patterns.
Renewable's main challenge is how to store energy cheaply in order to be able to be used reliably to supply the baseline. Until that happens, everyone is required to employ non-renewable energy sources that can and do meet the baseline.
It matters nothing is production is free if storing it to supply the baseline is more expensive and thus wasteful than conventional non-renewable sources.
Depends how expensive the electrolyser is. Just because I did make something when I was 9 years old that could fill up a small jamjar with hydrogen, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s economically viable.
(I have no idea either way if this is an important limit or not. Just that it can have other sources of downside besides merely using otherwise wasted energy).
There have been reports of cheap mediocre efficiency alkaline electrolyzers in China for under $200/kW. This is indeed a key area for hydrogen from intermittent renewables to be successful, but I think there's great room for cost decline here as volume ramps up.
There are two sides to this cost: energy production, and storage.
The part which is argued to be essentially free is the production, which is not synchronized with energy consumption patterns.
Renewable's main challenge is how to store energy cheaply in order to be able to be used reliably to supply the baseline. Until that happens, everyone is required to employ non-renewable energy sources that can and do meet the baseline.
It matters nothing is production is free if storing it to supply the baseline is more expensive and thus wasteful than conventional non-renewable sources.