Debunking The Myth: Hydrogen Is Not A Practical Or Cost-Effective Fuel

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

Last Updated on: 10th March 2025, 12:50 pm

Hydrogen has often been hailed as a fuel of the future, promising a clean and versatile energy source capable of decarbonizing multiple sectors. However, a closer look at the technical, economic, and infrastructure challenges associated with hydrogen reveals that these claims may be overstated. While hydrogen can indeed be used as a fuel, its inefficiencies, high costs, and logistical hurdles make it a poor alternative to electrification in most applications.

This is a companion article to the Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy material. In a similar manner to John Cook’s Skeptical Science, the intent is a rapid and catchy debunk, a second level of detail in the Companion to Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy, and then a fuller article as the third level of detail.

Hydrogen as a fuel is like building a house on sand —  unstable, costly, and hard to maintain.

One of hydrogen’s primary limitations is its low energy density, which necessitates storage at high pressures or cryogenic temperatures. This not only increases complexity but also significantly raises costs. Unlike batteries, which can store and release energy efficiently, hydrogen must undergo energy-intensive processes, including electrolysis, compression, and conversion back into electricity via fuel cells or combustion. According to Staffell et al. (2019), these inefficiencies result in a well-to-wheel efficiency of around 30% for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, compared to 77–87% for battery electric vehicles (BEVs). This stark efficiency gap raises fundamental questions about the viability of hydrogen in transport.

Transporting hydrogen is another challenge. As a gas, it requires high-pressure containment or conversion into a liquid at -253°C, both of which involve significant energy losses and infrastructure costs. Even alternative carriers like ammonia or methanol introduce additional conversion steps, further reducing overall system efficiency. Rouwenhorst et al. (2021) highlight that the capital costs for hydrogen transport infrastructure remain prohibitively high, making large-scale deployment economically unfeasible without substantial subsidies.

Most hydrogen today is still produced from fossil fuels, particularly natural gas through steam methane reforming (SMR). This process emits significant amounts of carbon dioxide, undermining hydrogen’s purported environmental benefits. While green hydrogen — produced via renewable-powered electrolysis — offers a low-carbon alternative, it remains expensive, with production costs two to five times higher than direct electrification (BloombergNEF, 2023). Without dramatic cost reductions in renewable energy and electrolyzer technology, hydrogen will struggle to compete with established electrification methods such as heat pumps and battery storage (IEA, 2021).

Despite these drawbacks, hydrogen is often promoted as a necessary energy vector for hard-to-electrify sectors, such as heavy industry and long-haul transport. While this may hold true for certain niche applications, none of which I’ve discovered despite years of looking, direct electrification is generally a more cost-effective and efficient solution. For example, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (2021) found that even in trucking, where hydrogen has been considered a viable alternative, battery-electric trucks are expected to dominate due to superior energy efficiency and lower operational costs.

Even government agencies and industry groups that support hydrogen acknowledge its limitations. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE, 2022) has noted that widespread hydrogen adoption faces significant infrastructure and economic barriers. The IEA (2021) similarly concludes that hydrogen requires extensive subsidies and policy support to compete with alternative low-carbon technologies, raising concerns about long-term economic sustainability.

Maritime shipping isn’t moving forward with hydrogen, but instead is shifting primarily towards batteries and biofuels, particularly in short-haul and regional shipping applications. In Europe and China, containerized battery systems are already being tested and deployed, allowing ships to swap out discharged batteries for fully charged ones at port, reducing downtime and eliminating the need for onboard hydrogen fuel infrastructure. This system has been successfully trialed on vessels navigating the Yangtze River, and similar efforts are being explored in European waterways, where battery swapping can provide an efficient and emissions-free alternative to fossil fuels (DNV, 2023).

At the same time, major global shipping companies are making significant commitments to biofuels, particularly biomethanol. Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, has placed substantial orders for methanol-powered vessels, aligning with its broader decarbonization strategy. The company has entered into agreements to secure a steady supply of green methanol, which can be produced from renewable sources such as biomass or synthesized using captured carbon dioxide and green hydrogen (Maersk, 2023). Unlike hydrogen, which requires new and complex infrastructure, methanol can be stored and transported using existing fuel infrastructure, making it a more practical option for long-haul shipping. Methanol-powered engines also avoid the extreme cryogenic storage requirements of hydrogen and have a higher energy density, allowing for longer voyages with fewer refueling stops.

Aviation has also seen a significant shift away from hydrogen as a viable alternative fuel. While Airbus once championed hydrogen-powered aircraft as a critical component of decarbonizing aviation, the company has since scaled back its ambitions. Recent reports indicate that Airbus is now prioritizing sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and battery-electric aircraft over hydrogen due to the immense challenges associated with hydrogen storage, distribution, and onboard energy conversion (Airbus, 2024). The European aviation industry as a whole has also revised its outlook, with a recent industry report downgrading hydrogen’s expected contribution to decarbonization from 20% to just 6% by 2050 (European Aviation Consortium, 2024). This reassessment reflects the growing recognition that hydrogen-powered aviation faces insurmountable economic and engineering obstacles.

The European Union has also made it clear that hydrogen has no significant role in residential and commercial heating, prioritizing electrification instead. The EU’s policy direction overwhelmingly favors heat pumps and district heating systems as the primary solutions for decarbonizing buildings (European Commission, 2024). Hydrogen’s inefficiency in heating applications, requiring multiple energy conversions with high losses, makes it economically and practically unviable compared to direct electrification. District heating networks, particularly in colder climates, provide a well-proven and scalable solution, integrating renewable energy sources such as geothermal, biomass, and excess industrial heat. Meanwhile, heat pumps, which operate with efficiencies well above 300%, offer an unparalleled advantage in residential heating, significantly outperforming hydrogen boilers in cost and energy use. Given these factors, the EU has firmly ruled out hydrogen as a widespread heating solution, reinforcing its role as a niche energy carrier rather than a mainstream option.

The enthusiasm for hydrogen often overshadows its fundamental challenges. While it may play a role in specific industries, its inefficiencies, high costs, and infrastructure demands make it an impractical choice for widespread deployment. As evidence from multiple studies suggests, the focus should remain on electrification wherever possible, reserving hydrogen for applications where no viable alternatives exist. That’s almost entirely industrial feedstocks to displace existing gray hydrogen with its high emissions.

---

References:

Airbus. (2024). Hydrogen’s Role in Future Aviation: An Updated Perspective.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2023). Hydrogen Economy Outlook.

DNV. (2023). Maritime Forecast to 2050: Energy Transition in Shipping.

European Aviation Consortium. (2024). Sustainable Aviation Strategies for 2050.

European Commission. (2024). Decarbonising Europe’s Buildings: The Role of Heat Pumps and District Heating.

European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). Hydrogen’s Role in the Decarbonisation of Transport and Industry.

International Energy Agency. (2021). The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities. Paris: IEA.

Maersk. (2023). Decarbonisation Strategy: Green Methanol and the Future of Shipping. Retrieved from https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2023/08/15/green-methanol-strategy

Rouwenhorst, K. H., van der Ham, A. G., & Mul, G. (2021). The feasibility of green hydrogen production for decarbonization of industrial sectors. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(58), 30236–30250.

Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Velazquez Abad, A., et al. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). Hydrogen Program Plan. Washington, DC: DOE.