Remember, it is only needed for a few dozen hours a year. It doesn't need to scale.
If your going to burn the power turning it into hydrogen then you save a shitload of that power by putting it in batteries instead.
Storage of hydrogen in underground caverns is demonstrated technology.
Methane is basically just hydrogen gas, but with one carbon for every 4 hydrogens. This means you can do stuff like liquefy it at higher temperatures and lower pressures, and it doesn't diffuse out of materials or otherwise destroy the materials (or seals) it's stored by.
>with the only advantage being that you can store more energy per unit volume at large scales.
In a vacuum, maybe; in real life, absolutely not. Hydrogen that is stabilized by a sufficient number of associated carbon atoms can be stored in plastic containers at standard temperature and pressure; naturally, we use the fuel that has just enough carbons that, while nominally a liquid, but would really rather be a vapor.
Because that stabilizer is part of that reaction, the best one from a CO2 perspective is the one that has as little of that stabilizer as possible. Which is what methane is.
but hybrid cars are saddled with a maintenance heavy complex system that isn't used much.
nowadays we know the solution is just a bigger EV battery.
Looks like 5 year reliability: ICE > non-plugin hybrid > pure EV > plugin hybrid
But EVs seem ok 5+ years
I found this article interesting:
https://autoedgeview.com/ev-reviews/consumer-reports-ev-reli...