Probably. An odorant such as a mercaptan would have sulfur, the mortal enemy of catalysts. But, as you say, hydrogen is a tiny and slippery little molecule, and a permselective membrane should do the trick.mvanwink5 wrote: Also, I would expect the hydrogen to be used for powering fuel cells, and I wonder what odorant would not be an issue for the fuel cell? But, I am wondering out of total ignorance on the subject, it's just that there are robust catalysts and catalysts that are picky.
For big energy storage facilities I don't see these objections as show-stoppers. H2 is non-toxic and environmentally benign once dissipated. The combustion byproduct is desirable. Professionals handling it, no coupling and uncoupling of lines and tanks, no odorant necessary. The criteria are: 1) enough hydrogen generating capacity to take the output of the intermittent resource, 2) sufficient fuel cell or other generating capacity to provide useful steady output to the grid, and 3) fuel storage for as much time as you think you need it, plus a reserve.
I think this approach probably scales better than electrochemical batteries (as AES was using on the Mount Storm/New Creek wind farm). The difference is you can tank the hydrogen, you are not limited to just the electrolyte in the batteries. Although we have discussed using external electrolyte storage here before. The thought is, once you have the basic plant running at the needed load capacity, increasing storage time means adding more tanks, not adding more fuel cell capacity.
But given my druthers, I'd still rather have Polywells running the grid.