[sacred_numbers]

I think the reason hydrogen storage costs won't fall much is because the cheapest technology (metal tanks) have already benefited from economies of scale. The parts that make them suitable for hydrogen storage specifically will get cheaper, but it's unlikely that there's a lot of low hanging fruit for manufacturing the tanks themselves. There could be a breakthrough in metal hydride storage or cryogenic storage that could reduce costs, but I'm not too optimistic. I think the most likely scenario is that most electrolyzed hydrogen is converted to methane for storage and use. Methane is much easier to convert to liquid and much more energy dense, which helps with storage costs.

[bryanlarsen]

Lithium prices should fall dramatically in the future as production increases.

[TheLoafOfBread]

And the rest of metals? Nickel, copper?

[ajross]

Storage batteries are moving rapidly toward a LiFePO4 chemistry that doesn't require rare resources. You can buy cars (even Teslas) and home batteries with them already.

[TheLoafOfBread]

Only a matter of time before phosphorus becomes as expensive as nickel or copper and you are back on the beginning with lack of materials for batteries.

> Earth's commercial and affordable phosphorus reserves are expected to be depleted in 50–100 years and peak phosphorus to be reached in approximately 2030.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

[ajross]

No, phosphate is vastly cheaper than battery metals. I mean, yes, we're using way too much of it (for agriculture, in a manner that ends up unrecoverably flushed into the oceans). And we're going to hit a wall, and its price is going to skyrocket. But to matter to a battery producer it would have to be so expensive that we'd have all starved anyway. The price levels between batteries and fertilizers are just too different.

[TheLoafOfBread]

> No, phosphate is vastly cheaper than battery metals

Lithium used to be cheap. Is not anymore. Phosphate will go same route. That's the whole point.