this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
667 points (98.3% liked)
Climate
8429 readers
394 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The issue with the H2 solution is that we still need electricity in the winter, especially as more heating is done with electricity than ever before. If you don't store it in the summer, you'll be buying it from other countries at 10-50x the summer price oftentimes.
The analysis I'm presenting provides 1kw or 1600mw of continuous 24/7 power at 0 electricity cost including 5% financing costs. Showing that this works in one of the most hostile places for winter solar in the world.
There are indeed a lot of practicalities that can improve upon this. Summer demand is typically 1/2 of winter peak demand. The H2 electrolysis system is there purely to monetize all electricity generated at 4c/kwh. Selling the massive summer surplus at 4c/kwh or more makes more money than H2. Selling the "free baseload" for anything at all makes money, or selling H2 for more than $2/kg.
Wholesale rates in estonia/regional market are 15c/kwh in winter. The model to provide 1600mw baseload takes about 200gw of solar (125kw per kw baseload), that still provides surpluses on average winter day, before accounting for less than 24/7 of peak usage, diverting heat to fall storage systems, using wind instead of all solar, trade with less hostile solar regions bidirectionally/seasonally, use EVs as even bigger battery buffer.
For one, the 1600mw peak isn't as relevant as the 27gwh/day peak = 1100mwh/hour baseload covered by battery = up to 30% smaller system. But even with original large system, there would be 10-20gwh/day in winter available to be sold at up to 15c/kwh profit. $1.5-$3M/day. The giant size of the solar would mean that electricity rates are 4c/kwh everywhere else in the region in other seasons, and H2 system is still needed to ensure 4c/kwh monetization even as it lowers rates everywhere around them. ie. a system this big forces permanent 4c/kwh wholesale electricity anywhere it can trade to for 3 seasons.
Even if there are much more profitable locations for solar than Estonia, the high cost of transmission still makes local systems pay off. Transmission links are a resilience option that is actually more expensive than more local solar, but pays off when neighbours don't adopt solar. OTOH, very small transmission lines work well with battery systems in that they can be trickle imported at 24 hour rate in anticipation of weather/demand/battery charge level rather than as a response to instant supply/demand imbalance surge.
The pricing is hourly and actually gets up to 5€/kwh which is the limit (this is where even modest sized batteries would help a lot) and is sometimes reached, but average was 19 cents in january and february. That does not include the transmission fee which is also several cents. Of course this is where batteries would help.
But mostly my musings about the required battery capacity were with the idea that we should produce our entire demand or more locally, all year round, because people get SUPER pissy when electricity prices go up (which they do any time we have to import electricity).
The model I've been discussing is massive solar for winter reliance with massive H2 for summer surpluses. Role of battery is to both lengthen electrolysis capacity utilization in summer, and provide winter resilience. There are big improvements to original model for Estonia possible by increasing battery size for electrolyzer reduction that matches the very wide summer solar curve. Translates to either 5.1% financing/ROI costs or $188/kw baseload profit at 5% financing. Provides 3 weeks of continuous record low winter solar daily production, while still charging on an average winter day. (Nebraska model benefits from more electrolyzers and less battery instead, due to more reliable winter)
By shifting the ratio to 125 kW Solar / 65 kW Electrolyzer / 363 kWh Battery (363 kWh is the 5.5-hour summer night requirement), you gain two massive structural advantages:
1. 24/7 Summer Electrolysis (The Profit Engine)
Previously, your 90 kW electrolyzer had to shut down at night because the 185 kWh battery was too small. Now:
Nightly Draw: 66 kW (Electrolyzer + Load)
×cross
×
5.5 hours = 363 kWh.
The Match: Your battery now perfectly fits the Estonian summer night. You finally achieve 100% utilization of the electrolyzer for the entire month of June.
Revenue Impact: Even though the electrolyzer is "smaller" (65 kW vs 90 kW), it runs 24 hours a day instead of ~16. Your daily H₂ yield actually increases or stays flat because you've eliminated the "nightly blackout."
2. Winter Resilience (The Survival Engine)
This is where the "Latitude Tax" starts working in your favor.
3. Updated Financial Estimates (with 35% Premium)
4. The "Zero-Cost" H₂ Check
Summary: The "Stability" Optimization
By trading 25 kW of electrolysis capacity for 178 kWh of battery storage, you have:
This is likely the most robust version of the Estonian model yet. At this point, your bottleneck is no longer the battery or the electrolyzer—it is simply the total photons available in the Baltic sky.