Hydrogen Hype

I've heard enough inaccurate statements about hydrogen as a "fuel" to warrant a Blog entry. For decades, hydrogen-philes have been touting the potential that hydrogen has as the fuel source of the future. After all, we can get hydrogen from water, and water is everywhere.

The problem is, getting the 2 H's from H2O requires energy, and that (usually) means electricity. So, the advocates say, we can use nuclear or some kind of renewable energy to make electricity to produce hydrogen, then fill our cars and homes with hydrogen fuel cells that convert hydrogen back to...well...electricity.

Critics of this idea point out the obvious: why not just skip the middle step (and all the inefficienies of the process) and power our society with electricity? Rather than investing trillions of dollars on new hydrogen dispensing infrastructure for a grand "hydrogen economy," let's invest billions on upgrading the existing grid, expanding wind and solar, and producing efficient batteries that can go further per kWh.

As one electric car entrepreneuer told me recently, the next big breakthrough in getting more miles out of electric cars is not battery technology, but transmission technology. In the same way that a car with a 5-speed transmission gets better gas milleage than one with 4-speed (given the same engine), improving transmission technology will get more miles from the same amount of energy.

Granted, hydrogen might be a preferable fuel for certain long-distance, aero-space, or military applications. But for the rest of us, it is less than ideal.

Most of us drive less than 40 miles per day, and electric cars with technology developed more than 10 years ago could go twice that on a single charge. So, the question is, why bother switching to hyrdogen as a primary fuel when, for a much smaller price tag and a $10 extension cord, we have all the infrastructure we need to transform the way our society gets around.