A system designed to deliver 1000 MW after storage would need a 1000 MW hydrogen-fuelled power station in addition to the dish system which generated the 1000 MW supply of hydrogen to run it, indicating high capital and embodied costs. The efficiencies of the various steps (e.g.,
.4 for hydrogen production, .8 for handling/transport, .4 for fuel cell generation) suggest an overall gross solar to wheels/use efficiency of 13%, from which the embodied and operating costs of materials-expensive hydrogen handling plant would have to be deducted. It is therefore not clear that this path would be more viable than the others considered above.
However, 4th Gen nuclear that eats nuclear waste could do the job far cheaper AND provide abundant reliable power no matter what the season or weather. So, 4 or 5 times the price for solar power that's not guaranteed, or cheap abundant electricity that could run the world for 500 years off today's nuclear waste (even if we closed all the uranium mines -- and there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to run Gen4 reactors for hundreds of millions of years). We have the technology TODAY to solve peak oil, global warming, and nuclear waste: we just need the Australian laws against nukes to be revoked so we can actually let the marketplace decide.
Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari