Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Oth­er cri­tiques of hydrogen:

• The prob­lem with mak­ing green hydro­gen to fuel pow­er plants (2023)
• The Unbear­able Light­ness of Hydro­gen (Bloomberg, 2022)
• Hydro­gen: Future of Clean Ener­gy or a False Solu­tion? (Sier­ra Club, 2022)
• Clean Ener­gy Group’s Hydro­gen Infor­ma­tion and Pub­lic Edu­ca­tion, includ­ing Hydro­gen Areas of Concern
• The ‘Big Lie’ of Blue Hydro­gen Starts With Ignor­ing Basic Eco­nom­ics (DeSmog, Sept 2021)
• Hydro­gen is Big Oil’s Last Grand Scam (Feb 2021 arti­cle in Clean Technica)
• Blue Hydro­gen. The great­est fos­sil fuel scam in his­to­ry? (Sept 2021 video)
• Hydro­gen: fuel of the future? (Aug 2021 video by The Econ­o­mist)
• You’re Wrong About Hydro­gen Cars (Jan 2022 video)

Fact Sheet: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

[Print­able PDF ver­sion of this fact­sheet]

In 2003, Pres­i­dent Bush pro­posed $1.2 bil­lion for “pol­lu­tion-free” hydro­gen vehi­cles run on clean ener­gy from hydro­gen and oxy­gen.¹ It is held up as a major step toward a “hydro­gen econ­o­my,” pow­ered by a clean and end­less sup­ply of energy. 

The real­i­ty is that the hydro­gen econ­o­my is cost­ly, inef­fi­cient, will not elim­i­nate our depen­dence on dirty ener­gy, or solve the green­house gas problem. 

Not Pollution-Free

Hydro­gen is the most abun­dant ele­ment in the uni­verse, a seem­ing­ly per­fect, end­less sup­ply of ener­gy. But hydro­gen itself does not pro­duce ener­gy; it is a car­ri­er, and stores ener­gy like a bat­tery. Pure hydro­gen is not found in nature, so ener­gy has to be used to sep­a­rate hydro­gen from the oth­er sub­stances it is stored in, either through “reform­ing” nat­ur­al gas, extract­ing it from sub­stances like methanol, or through elec­trol­y­sis (the process of sep­a­rat­ing hydro­gen from water). 

²

Cur­rent­ly 95% of hydro­gen is pro­duced from nat­ur­al gas, a fos­sil fuel. ³ The fact that hydro­gen is large­ly made from dirty ener­gy is also unlike­ly to change in the near future: the Nation­al Hydro­gen Ener­gy Roadmap, draft­ed by the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and the ener­gy indus­try, states that 90% of hydro­gen will be made using coal, oil and nat­ur­al gas, and the remain­ing 10% from nuclear. ⁴

Bio­fu­els, like ethanol, are anoth­er way to make hydro­gen. But there are plen­ty of fos­sil fuel inputs in bio­fu­el pro­duc­tion: feed­stock crops use nat­ur­al gas-based fer­til­iz­er, ener­gy-inten­sive farm machin­ery,⁵ and in the case of ethanol plants, are pow­ered by mini coal and gas plants.⁶ It is adding anoth­er inef­fi­cient process into the inef­fi­cient process of mak­ing hydro­gen; it would make more sense pow­er­ing cars direct­ly (but it isn’t clean — see fact sheets on Ethanol and also Biodiesel and Cel­lu­losic).

This does not sound clean or “pol­lu­tion-free”. It does sound like a way for the ener­gy indus­try to con­tin­ue using the same pol­lut­ing tech­nolo­gies while hid­ing it behind the guise of “clean” hydrogen. 

What about Hydrogen from Clean Energy?

Hydro­gen is pro­mot­ed as a way to address the prob­lem of green­house gas pol­lu­tion and the result­ing glob­al warm­ing. The only way to do this is to pro­duce hydro­gen from water, with wind and solar ener­gy. How­ev­er, this wastes 4 times the amount of elec­tric­i­ty that the hydro­gen will actu­al­ly yield.

⁷

Used direct­ly, that clean ener­gy could be more effec­tive in reduc­ing green­house gas pol­lu­tion: 1 megawatt hour (MWh) of clean elec­tric­i­ty used to make hydro­gen for a fuel cell car would off­set about 500 lbs of car­bon diox­ide (CO2) from oil; that same amount in the grid could off­set 2,200 lbs from a coal plant or 810 lbs from a gas plant.⁸

Fuel Cells

Once pro­duced, hydro­gen has to be put into a fuel cell. Fuel cells use a cat­a­lyst to speed up a chem­i­cal reac­tion between hydro­gen and oxy­gen to make elec­tric­i­ty, heat and water.

⁹

There are sev­er­al kinds of fuel cells; the type most wide­ly in use already is the phos­phor­ic acid cell, most­ly in build­ings.¹⁰ Oth­er types include molten car­bon­ate, which are as large as rail­road cars,¹¹ and sol­id oxide fuel cells (SOFC), both of which are not prac­ti­cal for trans­porta­tion, but may be used for sta­tion­ary appli­ca­tions in build­ings, where waste heat and elec­tric­i­ty from the fuel cell can be used.¹²

Large sta­tion­ary fuel cells could be an effec­tive tool for solv­ing grid inter­mit­ten­cy prob­lems with wind and solar, stor­ing ener­gy when there is extra pow­er and send­ing it back to the grid when there is less. See “Hydro­gen for Ener­gy Stor­age” for infor­ma­tion. How­ev­er they don’t make sense until the grid is rely­ing large­ly on wind and solar — oth­er­wise the fuel used to make hydro­gen would be more effi­cient­ly used to meet elec­tric­i­ty demand direct­ly, instead of tak­ing an extra step to make hydrogen. 

The kind of fuel cell best suit­ed for trans­porta­tion, the pro­ton exchange mem­brane (PEM) fuel cell, requires an exces­sive­ly expen­sive plat­inum cat­a­lyst and has an effi­cien­cy of only 35–40% (using nat­ur­al gas).¹³

Storage, Safety, and Transport

Hydro­gen has to be con­cen­trat­ed for use in trans­porta­tion: either liq­ue­fied, com­pressed, or stored in a met­al hydride.

¹⁴

Hydro­gen mol­e­cules are extreme­ly tiny and will leak from almost any con­tain­er or pipe. It has very lit­tle ener­gy by vol­ume it takes 3,000 times more space to store the same amount of ener­gy as gasoline.

¹⁵

It can only be liq­ue­fied at tem­per­a­tures near absolute zero; it will boil off and leak at air tem­per­a­ture. The liq­ue­fy­ing process uses 40% of the ener­gy in the hydro­gen¹⁶ with a prod­uct that only con­tains 1/4 the ener­gy of gaso­line by vol­ume.¹⁷

While less ener­gy-inten­sive than liq­ue­fac­tion, com­press­ing hydro­gen still takes 15% of the hydro­gen’s ener­gy.¹⁸ Com­pressed hydro­gen, at very best, would take up at least 4 times as much space in a tank as gaso­line for the same amount of ener­gy.¹⁹ Plus the stor­age tanks for com­pressed hydro­gen cost 100 times the cost of a gas tank.²⁰ Also, stronger mate­ri­als, like steel, are more like­ly to react with hydro­gen and become brit­tle. Com­bined with the high pres­sure, this makes the tanks sus­cep­ti­ble to bursting. 

Most hydro­gen acci­dents are caused when the gas escapes. A large enough num­ber of trucks car­ry­ing com­pressed hydro­gen to fuel all trans­porta­tion needs would be extreme­ly dan­ger­ous. Hydro­gen gas is invis­i­ble — even when on fire! No detec­tor exists that can be accu­rate enough to ensure its safe­ty.²¹

Met­al hydrides can store a larg­er amount of hydro­gen in less vol­ume than oth­er meth­ods, but to store 11lbs of hydro­gen takes almost 700lbs of equip­ment, very heavy!²² Extra fuel has to be used to move the vehi­cle, which can­cels out any gain in efficiency. 

Hydro­gen can also be “reformed” from nat­ur­al gas, ethanol, or methanol, right on board a vehi­cle, but the equip­ment is too large and inef­fi­cient.²³ This process also releas­es CO2, and so is not real­ly a clean option.²⁴

Transportation

• For hydro­gen fuel cell vehi­cles to be a viable trans­porta­tion option, 5 prob­lems would need to be solved: ²⁵
• The price of a hydro­gen vehi­cle is $1 mil­lion, and would cost about 50% more than inter­nal com­bus­tion engine (ICE) vehi­cles if mass pro­duced.²⁶
• The range of the vehi­cle is lim­it­ed; cars can’t car­ry enough hydro­gen to go very far.
• Hydro­gen fuel is 3–4 times as expen­sive as gas²⁷ and made from dirty sources.
• A huge, over $500 bil­lion fuel­ing infra-struc­ture is need­ed before peo­ple will buy hydro­gen cars.²⁸
• By the time those prob­lems are solved, com­pet­ing tech­nolo­gies, like hybrid and elec­tric cars, will have succeeded.

Instead of pour­ing bil­lions of dol­lars into fruit­less research for hydro­gen vehi­cles, we should look to real solu­tions. Elec­tric vehi­cles are an exist­ing, viable tech­nol­o­gy. Cars can be con­vert­ed to elec­tric, and in recent years elec­tric cars were com­mer­cial­ly avail­able in Cal­i­for­nia.²⁹ This is a more afford­able option, with cheap­er vehi­cles, no mas­sive infra­struc­ture to build (just plug it in!), and charg­ing costs for some mod­els as cheap as 3¢/mile!³⁰ The left­over mon­ey can be used to put toward new wind or solar pow­er devel­op­ment. There are still some issues with range and charg­ing time, but there are new bat­ter­ies that can go 150 miles on one charge.³¹

The wind and solar ener­gy that might be used to gen­er­ate clean hydro­gen could direct­ly be put to use pow­er­ing elec­tric cars, cut­ting out ener­gy-wast­ing mid­dle steps, like con­ver­sion to hydro­gen and back. 

Hydrogen is a False Solution

So why is hydro­gen being pro­mot­ed when there are eas­i­er solu­tions that can be imple­ment­ed now? The ener­gy and auto indus­tries have a stake in con­tin­u­ing what they are doing; they even formed a con­sor­tium called the Inter­na­tion­al Hydro­gen Infra­struc­ture Group to influ­ence fed­er­al offi­cials work­ing on devel­op­ing fuel cells. “ ‘Basi­cal­ly,’ says Neil Ross­meissl, a hydro­gen expert at the Depart­ment of Ener­gy (DOE), ‘what they do is…make sure we are doing what they think is the right thing.’ ” 

³²

All of the major oil com­pa­nies, Chevron-Tex­a­co, British Petro­le­um, Exxon­Mo­bil, and Ford have invest­ed mon­ey in hydro­gen research and pro­mo­tion.³³ That amount of mon­ey is not as great as the amount of prof­it they would lose by not sell­ing ICE cars run on gaso­line. In the case of Cal­i­for­nia, oil and auto com­pa­nies lob­bied the Cal­i­for­nia Air Resources Board to drop the Zero Emis­sion Elec­tric Vehi­cle Man­date and then pulled elec­tric cars from the mar­ket despite demand. ³⁴

Hydro­gen appears clean accord­ing to pro­mot­ers, but it will require hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars in infra­struc­ture, will be gen­er­at­ed with fos­sil fuels for the forsee­able future, is less effi­cient than elec­tric­i­ty, and is dan­ger­ous to store and trans­port. We need to see it for what it is: a dirty indus­try trick.

Foot­notes

1. George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan­u­ary 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128–19.html
2. Joseph J. Romm, “Hype About Hydro­gen: Fact and Fic­tion in the Race to Save the Cli­mate,” New York: Island Press, 2004. Ch. 4 “Hydro­gen Pro­duc­tion” https://islandpress.org/books/hype-about-hydrogen
3. U.S. Depart­ment Of Ener­gy Hydro­gen Pro­gram “Hydro­gen Pro­duc­tion” Oct 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/doe_h2_production.pdf
4. U.S. DOE. “Nation­al Hydro­gen Ener­gy Roadmap” Novem­ber 2002. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf
5. Ted Williams “Drunk on Ethanol.” Audubon. Aug 2004. http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0408.html
6. “A Car­bon Cloud Hangs Over Green Fuel,” Chris­t­ian Sci­ence Mon­i­tor, March 23, 2006. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html(also post­ed at http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/33969/); also cit­ed in “Warts and Ethanol – A new reliance on coal could sap green cred from the ethanol indus­try,” Grist, May 25, 2006. http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/26/unethacoal/Both arti­cles cite McIl­vaine Com­pa­ny (www.mcilvainecompany.com).
7. Joseph J. Romm, “Hype About Hydro­gen: Fact and Fic­tion in the Race to Save the Cli­mate,” New York: Island Press, 2004. p.75. https://islandpress.org/books/hype-about-hydrogen
8. Nick Eyre, Fer­gu­son, and Mills, “Fuel­ing Road Trans­port: Impli­ca­tions for Ener­gy Pol­i­cy,” pp. 35–38
9. Joseph J. Romm, “Hype About Hydro­gen: Fact and Fic­tion in the Race to Save the Cli­mate,” New York: Island Press, 2004. p.24. https://islandpress.org/books/hype-about-hydrogen
10. Ibid. p.26
11. Ibid. p.28
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid. p. 31 
14. Ibid. p. 93 
15. Ibid.
16. JoAnn Mil­liken, “Hydro­gen Stor­age Activ­i­ties Under the Free­dom Car & Fuel Ini­tia­tive,” U.S. DOE, Pre­sen­ta­tion to the Nation­al Hydro­gen Asso­ci­a­tion Meet­ing, March 5, 2003. 
17. Joseph J. Romm, “Hype About Hydro­gen: Fact and Fic­tion in the Race to Save the Cli­mate,” New York: Island Press, 2004. p.68. https://islandpress.org/books/hype-about-hydrogen
18. Ulf Bossel & Bal­dur Elias­son. “Ener­gy and the Hydro­gen Econ­o­my” 08 Jan­u­ary 2003 http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm?pdf=HydrogenEconomyReport2003.pdf
19. George Thomas & Jay Keller. “Hydro­gen Stor­age- Overview.” 8 May 2003. San­dia Nation­al Lab­o­ra­to­ries. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/bulk_hydrogen_stor_pres_sandia.pdf
20. Dale Sim­beck and Elaine Chang. “Hydro­gen Sup­ply: Cost Esti­mate for Hydro­gen Path­ways ‑Scop­ing Analy­sis” 22 July 2002. SFA Pacif­ic, Inc. Moun­tain View, Cal­i­for­nia for Nation­al Renew­able Ener­gy Lab­o­ra­to­ry. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/32525.pdf
21. Hansel “Safe­ty Con­sid­er­a­tions for Han­dling Hydro­gen: A Sem­i­nar for Pre­sen­ta-tion to Ford Motor Com­pa­ny,” Allen­town, PA, June 12, 1998 p. 27 
22. Michael Valen­ti, “Fil­l’er Up—with Hydro­gen,” Mechan­i­cal Engi­neer­ing. Feb 2002. http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/feb02/features/fillerup/fillerup.html
23. Eliz­a­beth Lokey. “A Crit­i­cal Review of the Ener­gy Pol­i­cy Act of 2005’s Treat­ment of Hydro­gen” Ener­gy Inse­cu­ri­ty and Sus­tain­able Ener­gy. Uni­ver­si­ty of Col­orado. 13 June 2006. http://www.hydrogennow.org/Opinion/EPAct%20and%20Hydrogen.pdf
24. See Mal­colm A. Weiss et al.”“Comparative Assess­ment of Fuel Cell Cars” Cam­bridge: Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy, 2003. http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf
25. As men­tioned by Joseph Romm in the film “Who Killed the Elec­tric Car?” http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
26. Arthur D. Lit­tle Inc, Guid­ance for Trans­porta­tion Tech­nolo­gies: Fuel Choice for Fuel Cell Vehi­cles, Final Report Cam­bridge, MA: ADL Feb 2002. p.31 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/fuel_choice_fcvs.pdf
27. Thomas Ros­trup-Nielsen as cit­ed in “Syn­thet­ic Fuels with Advanced Engines or Hydro­gen and Fuel Cells as a Medi­um-Term Solu­tion?” Green Car Con­gress. 11 Sep­tem­ber 2006 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/synthetic_fuels.html
28. Mar­i­anne Mintz et al. “Cost of Some Hydro­gen Fuel Infra­struc­ture Options” Argonne Nation­al Lab­o­ra­to­ry. Pre­sen­ta­tion to the Trans­porta­tion Research Board. 16 Feb 2002. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/224.pdf
29. See film “Who Killed the Elec­tric Car?” http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
30. “2002 Vehi­cles by Toy­ota” Fuel Econ­o­my Guide. U.S. DOE and U.S. EPA. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2002_Toyota_RAV4.shtml
31. “Tex­a­co to Acquire Gen­er­al Motors’ Share of GM Ovon­ic Bat­tery Joint Ven­ture” Press Release, Chevron Tex­a­co. 10 Oct 2000. http://www.chevron.com/news/archive/texaco_press/2000/pr10_10b.asp
32. Bar­ry C. Lynn, “Hydro­gen’s Dirty Secret,” Moth­er Jones (May-June 2003), http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/19/ma_375_01.html
33. Ibid.
34. John O’Dell. “GM Sues to Over­turn State’s Zero Emis­sion Vehi­cle Man­date” LA Times 24 Feb 2001. http://www.mindfully.org/Air/GM-Sues-CA-ZEV.htm and “Who Killed the Elec­tric Car?”http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
35. Ulf Bossel & Bal­dur Elias­son. “Ener­gy and the Hydro­gen Econ­o­my” 08 Jan­u­ary 2003 http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm?pdf=HydrogenEconomyReport2003.pdf