First, produce hydrogen with solar and wind, then store and transport it with rail and ships, and then it can be distributed to smaller vehicles. The biggest issue are oil and gas industry and politicians doing anything they can to stop the hydrogen progress.
In the “smaller vehicles” part, great obstacles need to be overcome.
I would be content with doing only the parts that are reasonably economical and efficient:
- produce it, store it as a compressed gas
- if CO2 is available, convert it to methane (can be liquefied for distribution) or even bigger molecules
- if there is demand, use it to reduce steel
- if storage maxed (no CO2, no ore to reduce) burn it back to water in a turbine, selling electrical power when the market needs it
Economically, this would likely make ends meet - and keep hydrogen away from consumers (consumers are careless and their systems often faulty, while hydrogen is demanding and dangerous).
Yes, using hydrogen cells as one part of the storage for over production of electricity from renewables would be the way to go, if you go hydrogen.
Yeah. Adoption means nothing as one is making hydrogen with the mindset they make petroleum based fuel.
Production needs to come before adoption. And by that, I mean, the end goal production process.
Any adoption before that is just wasting more energy.
But that’s the same for batteries, from what I see.
This “article” is bullshit. A simple search will show that the EU is and has been using fuel cells in their trucks for some time now. Not only does it work, but real world tests show it breaking exceptions.
Companies loved the idea of hydrogen because it was still a ‘fuel’ they could sell to the consumer as opposed to solar which wouldnt require filling stations.
We should have neen looking at aolar all along
Wish granted.
Oil companies in particular loved hydrogen because it was so easy to watch it fail while continuing to sell fossil fuel burning infrastructure as “hydrogen ready”
Uh huh, as expected and predicted
Cleantechnica exists for the sole purpose of selling Tesla products. Links to it have no place in this or any credible community.
I believe Michael Barnard is a con man who some how gets paid to hate on hydrogen. Most of his “analysis” is just linking to previous articles he’s written
I dunno about that. A quick browse of the site found several very negative recent Tesla stories
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/12/14/teslas-8-year-model-sales-trends-in-11-european-countries/
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/12/12/us-tesla-sales-drop-23-in-november-year-over-year/
“Hydrogen economy” believers.
Factual accuracy.
Pick one.
Don’t have to be a true believer to recognize bias. Hydrogen-power is so far from a product you or I can buy that its laughable to fret over industry simps, and yet …
… this article didn’t mesh with what I thought I saw over the last year, so I looked into why. Factual accuracy wasn’t on its side. Being unable to avoid reporting on certain negative facts doesn’t entitle them to make others up in denial of all evidence to the contrary.
“Everywhere” was too much a non-credible stretch for even hyperbole; THAT is a fact.
Hydrogen can never be used as a practical fuel source as it destroys anything it’s put inside.
There are in fact hydrogen cars like the Mirai. Its a cost-effectiveness problem, not a you-can’t do that problem.
Sorry friend, hydrogen cannot be stored or transported in any kind of practical or reliable fashion.
Some ege case where a hydrogen-powered vehicle was produced doesn’t take away from my point. It is not, and it cannot ever be a practical fuel source, because it effectively cannot be stored.
You are so confidential incorrect that I weep for the future. Please tell me you don’t vote?
Bro, if you do not understand the very basics of the standard model or solid state chemistry, you should probably just stop talking and being so arrogant.
Anybody that has the slightest clue about hydrogen knows that it cannot be used because it cannot be stored effectively. This is not an opinion, this is very fundamental basic, primitive almost, chemistry.
I can make a fucking hydrogen car in my kitchen right now by producing hydrogen via electrolysis, and direct it through a jet nozzle to produce thrust, but that is in no way proving that it’s usable in a practical sense, which is the word you seem to be skipping over in my replies.
Nobody has been able to solve this problem, and there’s no sign of it being solved on the horizon. Hydrogen is too small of an atom to be contained by anything else without destroying it.
Well its hard to beat fossil fuel in terms of energy density.
And if there were no externalities, that’d be just fine. But we’re far from that wonderful state.
Rhetoric contrast in the title. Were off to a promising start with this one.
