1) That doesn't actually exist yet. 2) You would need a huge number of generators to actually generate enough electricity to power the entire US.

Combined cycle power plants cost about $1/W; simple cycle, about $0.50/W. Combustion turbines are cheap. A nuclear plant, $10/W.

We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants.

As for "not actually existing yet", that's not anything close to a valid argument. Also, hydrogen storage doesn't require anything new -- all the component technologies exist, they just have to be integrated. This is the easiest and surest kind of innovation. It would be nice if higher demand drive electrolysers down their experience curve some more, I will admit. Cheaper is always nice.

"We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants."

I really want this to be true, I just don't think it is.

How hard is it to compare the numbers "1" and "10"?

Surprisingly hard if the confidence intervals are wide enough.

They're not? I mean, combined cycle plants have been built out the wazoo, so there's good data on that (replacing natural gas with hydrogen causes only minor changes, mostly in the combustor, and there are already industrial combustion turbines burning fuel gases that are mostly hydrogen.) Cost data on recent nuclear builds in the west are also widely available.

I suppose you may be meaning there's no good upper bound on how bad the expected unexpected cost overruns in nuclear can be.

I mean I don't have any confidence your numbers are correct.

The cost of combustion turbine power plants is well established since so many have been built. The cost of nuclear plants built recently in the west is also readily available.

Given that, it gives me pause that you don't actually know that information, given how eager you are to represent your "knowledge" on this subject.

The costs of creating 100 of those hydrogen storage caverns is completely unknown. You also have to add the cost of power lines to distribute the power to the rest of the country.

What? Creation of storage caverns is certainly well costed, because that's a standard way natural gas is stored. There are 36 such storage caverns for natural gas in the US. The estimated per energy capacity cost of creating such caverns is as little as $1/kWh (when storing hydrogen).

Hydrogen could also be stored in aquifers and depleted natural gas fields, just as natural gas is stored in those.

What will the leakage rate be? Hydrogen leaks through everything.

Hydrogen has already been stored in underground caverns, so it's clearly acceptable.

Geological storage like this involves very thick layers (hundreds or thousands of feet), so the leakage will be low in any case. If geological formations can trap methane for millions of years, they can trap hydrogen for much shorter times.