The problem is scale. Since the other responder didnt want to do napkin math - you could give it a go w.r.t to hydrogen. It gets very very expensive rather quickly. So very expensive you might start to wonder if you shouldn't have built a nuclear plant instead.
Local factories etc. might see a need/use for hydrogen production (Swedish Hybrit comes to mind) but as a national grid stabilizer.. I'm doubtful
Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by bluGill on Wednesday November 15, 2023 @11:26AM
(#38278494)
They all have something in common: they are very expensive at the scale we need. Hydro is one off the cheapest we have, and if you had a good location you would still be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars (or likely billions!) to build it.
The point is that there are many ways to store energy. The fact that there isn't enough lithium or not enough hydro sites doesn't change much.