Debunking The Myth: Hydrogen Is Not The Future Of Energy

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

---

There’s a romantic allure to the idea that we can simply plug renewable energy into water and create an endless, emission-free fuel. But, sadly, no. The stark reality is that green hydrogen is burdened by inefficiency, exorbitant costs, and logistical nightmares that make widespread adoption a distant dream.

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.

Green hydrogen is like trying to power a rocket with firecrackers– high cost and inefficiency make it a tough launch.

Let’s unpack the fundamentals. Green hydrogen involves using renewable electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. Sounds simple, right? Unfortunately, simplicity here is an illusion masked by layers of complexity and cost. Ruhnau and Qvist (2022) point out that electrolyzers — the core machinery of hydrogen production — suffer from chronically low utilization rates, particularly when relying on surplus renewable energy. Low utilization equals high costs, which immediately undercuts hydrogen’s economic feasibility.

And speaking of costs, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF, 2023) bluntly concludes that green hydrogen’s economics remain woefully unattractive. Despite optimistic scenarios spun by proponents, the cold truth remains: converting electricity to hydrogen and back to usable energy wastes a substantial portion of that original energy. Essentially, it’s a leaky bucket scenario — by the time you’re done transporting and converting hydrogen, you’ve lost around two-thirds of your initial energy input (IEA, 2021). It’s like insisting on lighting your house with candles after paying the electric bill — inefficient, expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Direct electrification, in contrast, presents a more straightforward path to decarbonization. Sepulveda et al. (2018) emphasize this clearly: direct electrification of vehicles, heating, and industrial processes delivers far superior efficiency, reducing both energy losses and overall costs. Batteries and grid electrification systems can deliver renewable power directly to consumers without incurring the punishing energy loss penalty hydrogen imposes.

Moreover, the European Commission (2022) explicitly recognizes that green hydrogen remains prohibitively expensive, rendering large-scale deployment impractical at present. Their recommendation is clear — use green hydrogen sparingly, as a niche solution primarily for the hardest-to-electrify sectors, such as long-distance maritime shipping, heavy aviation, and specific industrial processes like steel manufacturing. Even the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE, 2023), usually bullish on innovative technologies, acknowledges that green hydrogen faces major economic and infrastructure challenges. Its potential is niche, not broad-spectrum.

Advocates often fall victim to the “appeal to future possibilities” fallacy, painting a glowing image of a hydrogen economy without honestly confronting today’s technical and economic realities. This strategy obscures the pragmatic — and far more impactful — alternatives of immediate electrification. According to Temple (2021), the role of green hydrogen, at least in the near future, will remain strictly limited, not revolutionary.

Consider also the extensive infrastructure challenges. Hydrogen infrastructure doesn’t currently exist at scale, and building it out would require enormous investments. By contrast, electrical infrastructure is already deeply integrated into society. Leveraging existing electricity grids with improvements in battery storage and efficiency gains presents a far more practical solution (European Federation for Transport and Environment, 2021).

So, let’s put aside the utopian visions and face facts: green hydrogen, for all its seductive charm, isn’t the savior it’s often made out to be. It’s expensive, inefficient, and profoundly challenged by practicalities. Direct electrification, powered by rapidly expanding renewable generation, presents a cheaper, simpler, and far more sensible route to decarbonization.

---

References:

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Green hydrogen economics: Hype vs. reality.

European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe: Economic and technical barriers. Brussels: European Union.

European Federation for Transport and Environment. (2021). The green hydrogen illusion: Why it won’t be a silver bullet for energy transition.

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). The future of hydrogen: Challenges and market realities. Paris: IEA.

Ruhnau, O., & Qvist, S. (2022). The impact of electricity market dynamics on the cost of green hydrogen production. Energy Reports, 8, 3236–3248.

Sepulveda, N. A., Jenkins, J. D., de Sisternes, F. J., & Lester, R. K. (2018). The role of firm low-carbon electricity resources in deep decarbonization of power generation. Joule, 2(11), 2403–2420.

Temple, J. (2021, February 4). The hard truths about green hydrogen. MIT Technology Review.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen strategy: Evaluating the viability of green hydrogen for energy systems. Washington, DC: DOE.