Hydrogen hype and hurdles — Part one

Spread the love

Spending money trying to replace petroleum based gasoline with Hydrogen fuel cells is another way for the current administration to dole out money to friends as was done copiously with the solar cell industry. Hydrogen fuel cells are unlikely to be commercially competitive with other ways to fuel a car electric or otherwise. They create electricity by combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to get water and electricity. They require large quantities of platinum to make this happen whose cost will always make commercialization impossible. Separating hydrogen from water or natural gas will always be difficult and handling a pressurized flammable gas will never be comfortable. They actually do work pretty well on forklifts in a warehouse which is where the American Taxpayers money will end up.

Green Hydrogen is the latest “energy” fad from the global warming warriors. It is mainly hot air.

Hydrogen may never be a source of energy. Unlike coal, oil or natural gas, hydrogen rarely occurs naturally – it must be manufactured, and that process consumes far more energy than the hydrogen “fuel” will likely recover. And the heat content of natural gas is over three times that of hydrogen.

“Hydro-gen” means “born of water”, but the first commercial fuel containing hydrogen was born of coal. Maybe it should be called “Carbo-gen”?

“Town Gas” was manufactured by heating coal to produce hydrogen, methane and oxides of carbon. The resultant mixture of flammable gases was used for street lighting and domestic heating and cooking. It was replaced by “clean coal by wire” (electricity).

Today’s hydrogen hype proposes using wind and solar energy to produce “green” hydrogen by electrolysis of water. But all green generators are unreliable and intermittent – they seldom produce rated capacity for more than a few hours. “Green hydrogen” would create a messy scatter of expensive equipment for panels, turbines, roads, power lines, electrolytic cells and specialized storage tanks and freighters – all to produce stop-start supplies of a tricky, dangerous new fuel. Risking capital in such ventures is best suited to unsubsidized and well-insured speculators.

There are other problems.

Let’s take Australia as an example where the senior author hails from. It is a huge dry continent. Burning hydro-carbons like coal, oil and gas releases plant-friendly CO2 and water into the atmosphere. (Every tonne of hydrogen in coal produces 9 tonnes of new water as it burns.) However every tonne of green hydrogen extracted using electrolysis will remove over 9 tonnes of fresh surface water from the local environment. That water may be released to the atmosphere far away, wherever the hydrogen is consumed (maybe in another hemisphere). The tonnage of water thus removed (often from sunny dry outback areas) would be substantial.

Farmers whose water is already rationed will wake up one morning to see their grassy hills covered in wind turbines and power lines, their fertile flats smothered in solar panels, and a huge hydrogen generator draining their water supply. Not green at all.

And there are other dangers.

The hydrogen molecule is tiny, seeking any minute escape hole. Once it reaches the air, one small spark will ignite a violent explosion (once detonated, it burns ten times faster than natural gas). This makes storage and transport of hydrogen difficult, and the swift destruction of the Hindenburg illustrates the danger. It cannot be moved safely in natural gas pipelines and exporting it as a liquefied gas just wastes another 30% of the energy and adds another layer of cost, complexity and danger.

Using hydrogen for fuel cells in vehicles makes a bit more sense than promoting electric vehicles powered by massive flammable batteries made of rare metals. The battery car green dream faces huge costs and obstacles to generate the extra electricity, mine the battery metals, establish reliable battery charging stations all over the country and cope with battery disposal problems. Hydrogen fueled cars could improve city air quality, but at the vast risk and expense of producing, handling and dispensing a dangerous gas. Hydrogen makes no sense for replacing petrol and diesel on country roads or farms.

For hydrogen to replace coal, oil and gas would require immense quantities of hydrogen, needing large quantities of fresh water and huge quantities of reliable electricity to generate it.

If there was a profitable market for electrolytic hydrogen it would be far more efficient to use coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power for continuous production of hydrogen in an area well supplied with fresh water. But there really isn’t a market.

Forget the global warming religion and get rid of intermittent wind and solar generators from the grid unless they provide their own backup generators. Cut their subsidies and let them use their intermittent energy to generate unsubsidized green hydrogen for sale to whoever will buy it.


  • Dr. Jay Lehr
  • CFACT Senior Science Analyst Jay Lehr has authored more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. Jay’s new book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change written with Teri Ciccone is now available on Kindle and Amazon.

The post Hydrogen hype and hurdles — Part one appeared first on CFACT.



September 19, 2022 

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