Stritzki's estimate, not mine. And I haven't yet found the old article that I read that contained the info. See "patton"'s comment upthread for more recent take.
"I don't believe the economics are above the options."
????? No comprende.
"You need to look at the low specific gravity of hydrogen and how much waste heat is generated to compress it down to a usable volume.
Very little, if you use the electrolyzer to generate the pressure. Which is quite feasible in the low pressure systems I'm referring to. You may disagree that that is a "usable pressure". But I was specifically comparing to compressed air storage losses.
"I don't mean to dismiss it as unfeasible. But I do not see numbers to support it as a better option."
Compared to today's cost of fossil fuels, and with today's technology, no. But then, nothing else is either. Which is why killing off the idea of "global warming" is so important. Fortunately, Dr. Robert Spencer seems to have found the "smoking gun" scientific evidence to do so. Direct measurement of IR emission from the earth into space. One doesn't GET any more "direct" than that.
"I do keep looking at systems like this for my personal use. I have some remote property we will be developing and I will have to extend the power line over a mile to reach it and it will not be a straight path."
Take a look at the "Backwoods Home" website and/or magazine. Several really good articles about "remote energy" generation.
"But economics are the deciding factor."
Indirectly, yes. But technology will underlie any economic advances. And advances here seem to be speeding up rather than remaining constant or slowing down.
Thanks