Why hydrogen fuel cells are NOT the future

In the past weeks, hydrogen fuel cell cars have been in the media again:

Why are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being developed?

Hyundai-ix35-Fuel-Cell-EVThe idea for hydrogen fuel cell cars has been around for decades. Automobile manufacturers and universities all over the world have experimented with the technology, trying to figure out a way to make it work. But despite these years of research and the investment of billions of dollars, the simplest and most usable solution that is currently available for a reasonable price is the battery electric car.

Advocates of hydrogen mobility keep shouting the two main benefits of hydrogen from the rooftops:

  • Hey, it reduces our dependency on foreign oil, and it will never run out!


  • Hey, you can drink from the tailpipe, because there’s zero exhaust emissions, just water!

bush-shell-hydrogen-fuel-cellOf course, this will get populist and short-sighted politicians on the band wagon, using the promotion of hydrogen mobility and the promise of even more billions of subsidy into the further development of hydrogen cars. This should show how savvy and involved with the environment they are, but what they are eager to forget (conceal) is that hydrogen is a backwards and utterly superfluous technology for cars.

Why shouldn’t hydrogen fuel cell vehicles be developed?

Sure, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it’s only used as an energy carrier, so it doesn’t get used up in a fuel cell. However, it doesn’t exactly grow on trees either, and there are no underground “hydrogen pockets” that we can simply pump it out from. It doesn’t exist on our planet in a pure state, so it has to be extracted from compounds from which it doesn’t really want to be separated, taking a lot of energy.

hydrogen-pipesYou’d think hydrogen would simply be made by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O), but this proves too inefficient, so about 95 percent comes from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, a process which creates carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and makes the first argument pointless. Also, it costs more energy than it will generate when reversed in the fuel cell (six units of coal energy are needed to produce one unit of hydrogen energy). As a result, a hydrogen car will not be environmentally friendly until the energy is generated from solar power or wind power, just like a battery electric vehicle.

The practical issues against hydrogen fuel cell cars

But the battery electric vehicle starts to take a clear advantage when storage and distribution is taken into account.

A large amount of hydrogen is required to generate just a small amount of energy. As a result, cars would need huge tanks with hydrogen or they’d have a very short range between fuel stops. That makes it a necessity to build an extensive network of hydrogen fuel stations.

hindenburg-hydrogenAlso, hydrogen is an extremely explosive and dangerous gas (remember the Hindenburg?), which needs enormous and very strong tanks to be stored either as a gas or in liquid form. In order to find practical ways to store hydrogen, a lot of research still needs to be carried out, which will take at least another decade or two. And the same problems that create barriers for storage arise in distribution, as it’s extremely dangerous and inefficient to distribute hydrogen by trucks driving to fuel stations. Experts consider the best and safest way to transport hydrogen is through an underground pipeline system, which not exactly a simple and cheap infrastructure to build.

Why should we go through all these complicated and dangerous steps and invest billions of dollars in order to produce, store and distribute energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor,  when the technology of EVs is already in use and electricity can be taken from power outlets in every home and office around the world and be stored in simple car batteries?

Who’s pushing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?

hydrogen-fuel-stationIt seems there’s still a long way to go before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will replace the internal combustion engine, if ever. First we need to find a way to produce hydrogen in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Then we need to find ways to store and distribute hydrogen safely and efficiently. Then we need to build an enormous and complicated infrastructure to distribute hydrogen to fuel stations that also still need to be built. And then the consumer needs to be convinced that they need to pay more for hydrogen than for gasoline (and that’s without taxes!).

I believe there a two forces pushing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles:

  • Oil companies that are afraid that gas stations will become redundant once everybody can charge their long-range EVs at home or at the office. Of course, they have already researched hydrogen production and would like you to fill your hydrogen car up at one of their hydrogen fuel stations.
  • Governments that on one hand want to prove they’re environmentally conscious and not afraid to support upcoming technology and on the other hand are afraid to lose one of their biggest cash cows: taxes and duties on gasoline and diesel, which can easily be levied on hydrogen when the technology is widely accepted, but not so easy on electricity from a home power outlet that is used to “fuel” an EV.

Automakers have already invested billions of dollars into the research for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which makes it a very difficult decision to admit they have run into a dead end. They’d rather continue making the public believe hydrogen mobility is only a decade away, as they already have been saying for over 15 years now, and making us believe their brand is a technology leader, than to admit they have poured billions into a bullshit technology that will stay the fuel of the future forever.

Sure, science has made things that seemed impossible possible many times before, but it will take another decade or two and another handful of billions in order for hydrogen mobility to become a reality, if ever. And besides that, it’s just stupendously difficult and may be utterly pointless, as the technology and the infrastructure for battery EVs is already in place. No wonder fuel cells are also named “fool cells”. The investments could better be aimed at improving batteries in order to increase range and shorten charging times. Because when that happens, hydrogen will go the way of the dodo. But even then, there’s still a battle to be fought against two extremely powerful forces. I guess the car manufacturers just don’t want to bet against Big Oil and Big Government.


  1. I have a simple and effective answer to EVERY ONE OF YOUR NEGATIVES to using hydrogen to power cars. No need to burn fossil fuels to make hydrogen. No need to distribute hydrogen anywhere thru pipelines or truck it anywhere. No need storing it in dangerous storage tanks. The answer is simple and thousands of people are doing it right now all around you. Correction, my bad, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people are using hydrogen right now to burn as fuel in their cars in nearly every country in the world. Its called hydrogen on demand and as much time as you have to watch videos on you tube or google videos or anywhere people upload videos to the web you can watch the growing plethora, the sheer cornucopia, or the endless myriad of different but effective creations people have made with stainless steel, a quart or two of water, and a twelve volt power supply to turn water into hho gas thru a process called electrolysis. Just a liter a minute will increase mpg by 25 – 75 % those units fit easily into a space no bigger than a lunch box. A child’s lunchbox which is exactly why it is so safe, you make it as you need it. Many examples of larger units that power a vehicle entirely by hydrogen on demand have been made, proven, tested, aired on the news on numerous stations, and goes back at least thirty years. Don’t believe me? look it up yourself. Google “Stan Meyor”, “Denny Klein”, “cars that run on water” etc. etc. and you will see old news clip after news clip of cars that run entirely on hydrogen made on demand. Just one catch, don’t try taking this technology to the patent office, congress, any auto manufacturers, or announce openly to the world you are using one of these devices beyond supplementing your gas or you might make enemies with the richest most lucrative industry in the world…

  2. What has been said is not science, hydrogen is produce by every power station that generates steam to drive the turbines. At the moment it is not collected. Hydrogen is only 5% more explosive than natural gas. Hydrogen can be made into liquid form for storage. In the midlands natural gas and hydrogen are being combined into the domestic supplies as a trail.
    Just think in 10years electric lithium batteries if adapted for cars will amount to 10million batteries that are no longer capable of running the car, they could fail in 5 years creating huge costs to the car owner. I agree it not simple but petrol stations would have liquid hydrogen delivered into the pressurized car tanks. The hindenburg did not blow up but burnt rapidly giving up oxygen and steam. It is also true the water from spent hydrogen can’t be drunk because it has a small amount of nox, this could be watered down for plant fertilizer. The only reason for electric cars it is simple to set up now. I have no problem with that but only as a stop gap. Technology will improve in the next 5 years, as for old ideas most of which runs all power stations (STEAM).

  3. I fully support the technical content of the article: hydrogen is nonsense for most proposed applications, because if it is produced from methane it has a bigger greenhouse impact than gasoline and if it produced from the electrolysis of water it is utterly inefficient. Furthermore it is definitely dangerous, because it requires storage in a 700 bar tank (even worse if it is stored in cryogenic liquid form) if a reasonable range (500 – 600 km is to be achieved). Furthermore, a hydrogen car parked in a garage without mechanical ventilation is an explosion hazard. Hydrogen does not make sense even for trucks, because it is too dangerous to carry around. Tesla has already demonstrated a battery semi, and, considering the size of the vehicle, it is conceivable to have a replaceable battery pack (which would require just a few minutes) should the charging time be a problem. Even more insane are the hydrogen fork lifts: why use hydrogen instead of proven battery technology, just to save the charging time? I read about a hydrogen fork lift that burst into flames killing the operator. Even for trains a study from VDE (an engineering association in Germany) has found that battery powered trains have an economic advantage over hydrogen powered ones. Trains are much less likely to be involved in an accident than road vehicles and are much better monitored for safety (and do not need to enter close spaces), therefore safety concerns for hydrogen use would be reduced, but hydrogen powered trains cannot compete with battery based solutions and even, in most cases, with a complete electrification (with overhead wire) of the line, due to the high costs of hydrogen generating stations and of hydrogen powered locomotives. In Europe companies distributing natural gas plan to distribute a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas in the future, which also makes no sense, because, even if the hydrogen were produced from electrolysis the benefit from the point of view of the greenhouse effect would be minimal and a significant risk would be represented by hydrogen leaking from pipes and joints that were designed to be methane tight, but are not guaranteed to be hydrogen tight. We should rather look into a future without natural gas, either, because it is dangerous (there are thousands of natural gas incidents around the world each year), its combustion is one of the main sources of carbon dioxide and it has, when leaked, a greenhouse potential more than 20 times that of carbon dioxide. Indeed, we already have valid alternatives to natural gas for most applications (for example heat pumps for heating), thus it should be phased out as soon as possible, trying to get rid of it also for the production of electric power.
    Maybe only ships making transatlantic crossings could benefit from hydrogen, for the rest hydrogen technology is to be forgotten.

  4. I totally agree with everything you say; thing I can’t figure out is how come everybody doesn’t know the World is Flat!!!

  5. Ok. So detractors , how do you knock the fact that many people have taken advantage of the hydrogen by electrolysis powered car , and motor along cheaply with a smile on their faces ? Anyone can see that the only things preventing this from taking off are oil and gas companies , and governments ; all hell bent on perpetuating the power and moneygrabs .

  6. Well something is not right here. Has anybody else spotted it?
    To produce hydrogen by electricity in a car you need a source of electricity, as in a battery! Well if you need a battery, then why not run the car from that battery in the first place, via an electric motor, and save yourself all those inefficiencies of producing hydrogen gas, from that very same battery?
    What about LPG? Well you might as well use petrol as they both have pollution issues.
    What about vegetable oil? Well that is fine, but still causes pollution. However, its grown so could be carbon neutral, potentially.
    So the direction is in producing electricity via nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro (as in Norway). Oil and gas as backup, and li-ion batteries for any cars, should bring us almost to the carbon neutral stage, the govenment wants. However there is not enough Lithium available, so new battery technology is needed. It will take 15 years to get new nuclear power stns online. It’s a long long road, with many a winding turn…..

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.