Dude. You are falling back to the "if it isn't already being done, it can't be done" argument. Please stop this foolishness.
Hydrogen is being stored in a few places. That the storage isn't larger isn't because of any technical obstacles, it's because there's no reason to store it now. In particular, when we can burn natural gas without CO2 charges, using the hydrogen for energy storage is pointless.
This doesn't mean hydrogen CAN'T be stored, it just means the market conditions for widespread adoption of an off-the-self technology aren't there yet.
Storing hydrogen is only one piece of the puzzle. Yes, if you happen to live near an abandoned salt mine that's a convenient place to put a large quantity of hydrogen. That doesn't solve the problem of massive electrolysis facilities, and turbines that can burn hydrogen.
And it certainly doesn't answer the question of whether or not this represents a viable grid-storage solution, since we haven't built it at remotely close to the scale required.
It's not "if it isn't already being done, it can't be done"
It's "if it isn't already being done, it is extremely reckless to assume that it can be done cheaply at a massive scale".
Screw it, let's just use fusion. Nobody has actually built a fusion plant? Well, who cares if it hasn't already been done, that's a "foolish argument" in your own words. /s
These are not abandoned salt mines, they are deliberately created caverns in salt domes. The cost of creating them is included in the capital cost ($1/kWh capacity).
Hydrogen could also be stored in depleted gas fields and in deep saline aquifers. The storage capacity available is more than adequate.
For the third time, storage is only one part of the puzzle. We also need a way to cheaply electrolyze water into hydrogen, compress it into the storage facility, and then use it to generate electricity. Nobody doubts that you can pump hydrogen into a big cave. What's dubious is transforming this into a usable energy-storage facility.
We haven't done this to provide 100 MWh of storage. How on earth can we be confident it'll be easy to provide 1 TWh of storage, or 10 TWh?
People mostly talk about lithium ion storage because that's what's actually available, besides geographically limited options like hydroelectricity. Until there's a company that's building dozens of gigawatt hours of hydrogen storage it's a moot point. It's a technology that exists the laboratory, not one that's commercially available.
Hydrogen is being stored in a few places. That the storage isn't larger isn't because of any technical obstacles, it's because there's no reason to store it now. In particular, when we can burn natural gas without CO2 charges, using the hydrogen for energy storage is pointless.
This doesn't mean hydrogen CAN'T be stored, it just means the market conditions for widespread adoption of an off-the-self technology aren't there yet.