Issues with the "Hydrogen Economy"

In an email conversation I had with a reader I noted my surprise that General Motors seems to be headed in the direction of  hydrogen, and I expressed my belief  that the “hydrogen economy” is not a solid idea.

I’m curious to understand their strategy re: hydrogen.  If I were able to speak with them, I would ask:  Why hydrogen?  Aren’t they concerned about the lack of delivery infrastructure?  Why are they not dedicating themselves to battery electrics?   Would they have a stake in the hydrogen generation process?  The delivery infrastructure? What have they learned from Honda’s extensive experience in the field?  They seem to be going in the opposite direction as Honda.  Why?

The reader responds:

I disagree with your saying that hydrogen isn’t the way of the future, since it’s the most abundant and powerful fuel in the universe. Now, the challenge is to find new ways of obtaining it, different from the reformation of hydrocarbons, maybe optimizing electrolysis. 

I reply:  Well, here’s the problem: hydrogen isn’t really a fuel, any more than electricity is a fuel; rather, it’s a carrier of energy.  It’s true that it’s abundant in the universe, but not on Earth, in its elemental form, at least.  As you pointed out, it needs to be made – and in ways that are fairly inefficient; the best electrolyzers are about 60% efficient, and they’re (currently, anyway) quite expensive.

As I implied above, the other, and larger, issue with hydrogen is the delivery infrastructure.  Our land mass in the continental U.S. is about 3.5 million square miles, and retrofitting that for hydrogen would be a horrendously expensive proposition.  Contrast that to electricity, which is ubiquitous.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
One comment on “Issues with the "Hydrogen Economy"
  1. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    We both know I’m more cynical than you are with regards to the “renewable transportation” technologies at large… which is why GM’s idiocy with the hydrogen fuel cell doesn’t surprise me as much as it does you…

    I believe that the big vehicle manufacturers regard all investment into alternative fuels vehicles as a gimmick. It’s basically an investment in advertising. The GM team working on the Volt specifically considered it as a means of obtaining a “Green Halo”… Environmentalists like the fact you’re working on something green, so they come into the dealership to look at the obscenely expensive technobauble… and they won’t buy it… but they’ll think highly of the brand, and then be sold something else within that brand without even considering the vehicle they’re buying might well be less environmentally friendly or economically viable than a competitor’s vehicle that doesn’t have the green technobauble.

    This really was discussed by GM when they were making the Volt, which is why they weren’t concerned over the then mind-boggling $43,000 price tag (for a vehicle that is not actually superior to the Prius – which is far more environmentally friendly).

    Since the release of the Volt, GM’s sales have soared by MILLIONS of vehicles that range from big trucks and SUV’s to a broad range of sedans from efficient hybrid compacts to large sedans with oversized engines… while they’ve sold about 20,000-30,000 Volts (of course the Volt is not the only thing that has altered in GM since its nadir), and even with the subsidies they’ve reported lost money on those few Volts they’ve sold.

    The Volt’s biggest contribution to the company was the advertising benefits of the “Green Halo”.

    If that is the case, now that other companies have doubled-down and gone full electric (worse for the environment, more expensive, better “Green Halo” effect), GM again feels the need to put money into shining their Green Halo. This will be very good money if – as I suspect – the whole EV craze dries up as soon as Federal subsidies are exhausted.

    FWIW, EV’s are a better choice in all cases than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: The HFCV’s cost ~10 times as much as EV’s… the complications in distribution are greater, the total system efficiency is lower (worse for the environment)… It’s all worse, and all dumb… But GM is betting it will improve the sales of their GMC trucks and Chevy Tahoes.