It is canonical, classical, and simple conventional wisdom that what clean energy (solar and wind) really needs is a vast scalable energy storage technique, if clean energy is to actually replace burning carbon as the primary engine of civilization. The sun does not shine all the time; nor does the wind blow all the time-- We can "make hay while the weather's fine" and generate plenty of electricity cheaply and cleanly, but of course those "weather's fine" times do not closely coincide energy demand peaks and valleys. So we need an efficient energy storage technique, that readily "scales up", to store clean energy until we are ready to use it.
So far, the best battery technology in the world seems not to be up to the job. It is said that all the batteries extant in the world today would store only 10 minutes of our current energy consumption world-wide. Also, production of the best batteries requires rare earth metals that are indeed rare, and difficult-plus-expensive to mine and refine. We are in a deep hole if batteries are the only way to store wind and solar clean energy so as to dynamically match spot supply with current immediate demand. Alternatives like pumped hydro (google it), and CAES (compressed air energy storage) seem to be very much "special case" situational niche technologies.
Other non-battery, "clean-burn" techniques like "green hydrogen", and "blue hydrogen" are being tried:
Early returns on these technologies are either encouraging and/or discouraging, depending upon who one speaks to, and how optimistic those experts are on the day that we interview them. One tough issue is that Hydrogen is the lightest element-- energy density is a constant issue.
I recently ran across yet another non-battery technique that I find intriguing: Synthesizing NH3 (ammonia) is very energy intense, consuming lots of energy to form the chemical bonds involved; and that energy can be recovered by a clean chemical reverse process releasing energy as ammonia is "burned back" into N2 and water. This could be done economically on a scale small enough to power a single automobile.
HOWEVER, there are definite safety issues with automobile-sized canisters of NH3 hurtling about our roads, threatening to release extremely unpleasant, poisonous aerosols and gases into people's nostrils (and eyes) any time there is a car accident. It would probably be better overall to keep on with battery-powered electric vehicles much as we are developing today.
Then we could use clean wind and solar to produce NH3 from the air itself, as a way to store clean energy; and then of course, use NH3-based electric plants to power the charging and recycling of auto-sized batteries, in EV's much like those which are slowly (but one hopes surely) replacing our ICE (internal combustion engine) trucks and autos of today and yesteryear. And of course, NH3-based electricity could also cleanly power the grid when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, neatly replacing the "Peaker Plants" which today provide rapid dynamic energy demand matching by burning natural gas.
Two things for sure:
- Air is everywhere that humans live and have a need to produce energy.
- NH3 has better "energy density" and fewer volatility problems than any color of H.
12-Dec-21: It had to happen, I suppose. Stock idea hustler Roger Gordon has adopted ("invented" sic) something he is calling Green NH3, building a machine that uses electricity to synthesize NH3, to wit:
Except of course his device uses more energy than it stores. There are other Ammonia hustlers out there as well. They all seem to come down to a story intended to drive some speculative penny stock... (Alex Kofyman is prominently-- and probably transiently-- among these).
The "Carew-correct" way to exploit the chemical power of NH3 bonding is to use clean energy (solar and/or wind) to synthesize NH3 for use when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. NH3 stores lots of energy, which can be "burned back" (turned into electricity or other working kinetic) totally without pollutant side effects.