With all of the virtual ink being spilled over electric vehicles at the moment, it's easy to lose sight of some of the other alternatives being explored by auto manufacturers. One of those alternatives is hydrogen, and there are pros and cons to H2 as an energy transport method before we all start shouting, "Oh, the humanity!"
Last fall, executive vice president of Honda Motor Company Shinji Aoyama told PopSci that a delicate balance exists between hydrogen supply and demand, and right now affordability presents a challenge for consumers. On average, hydrogen costs $13 to $16 per kilogram, which is roughly equivalent to two gallons of fuel. Currently, the national average for 87 octane gas (according to AAA) is about $3 per gallon, which means that hydrogen still costs more than double at the pump.
That isn’t deterring the Japanese automaker, which says that solar and wind power are unstable on their own, as they are more susceptible to seasonality and weather conditions. By using renewable energy to generate hydrogen, it becomes a greener cycle.
“To ensure stable use of renewable energy, we need a means to store electricity that absorbs the impact of fluctuations in power generation,” said Honda executive (and 30-year Honda veteran) Arata Ichinose. “This is where hydrogen shows high potential as an energy carrier.”
Is this a viable alternative? Well, let's take a look.
Pros:
- Unlike many other "green" energy transport methods, like batteries, hydrogen has a very high energy density. This is key; advances in technology always come as a result of cheap, high-density energy. Every major advance in energy production and transport has come with an increase in energy density: From wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear.
- Hydrogen burns clean. The output is water vapor and heat. And it takes very little energy to ignite hydrogen, reducing start-up costs.
- In the event of an accident, hydrogen - being lighter than air - doesn't pool around the scene, instead rising quickly into the atmosphere. Most of the fire at the infamous Hindenburg incident was burning Diesel from the airship's engines and the canvas shell, although the fire was sparked by the hydrogen in the airship's body.
- The hydrogen fuel cells being placed in vehicles at the moment are considerably lighter than the huge battery packs of electric vehicles.
Cons:
- To support a hydrogen-vehicle economy, there would have to be a massive infrastructure overhaul. Have you passed a hydrogen station lately? Me neither. The cost of this would likely be in the billions of dollars, and who would pay for all that?
- Hydrogen is an energy carrier. There are no natural sources of hydrogen. It has to be produced, and most hydrogen at present comes - you guessed it - as a by-product of oil and gas production.
- Hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis of water, but that requires considerable energy input. It's unlikely that windmills and solar power can supply enough of this input to make a difference. Nuclear power could, were we to actually start using reactors for energy production.
- Hydrogen in fuel cells is stored under high pressure; there's potential there, one would presume, for catastrophic damage if one was broached in an accident.
On the surface, it looks as though hydrogen as an energy carrier has some significant advantages, if for no other reasons than that it is a high-density medium and it produces very little in the way of emissions. Of course, if it's gaseous emissions you're looking for, one need look no further than Congress.
See Related: AOC Appears to Release Methane Into the Atmosphere, Environmental Impact Unknown
The infrastructure is the rock on which hydrogen as fuel founders. It may be more practical in places like urban Japan, where not everyone even bothers to own a vehicle at all, and where the density of the cities simplifies the transport and station problems. But here in the United States? There is going to be a huge increase in the amount of H2 produced, as well as a massive overhaul of infrastructure to support H2 vehicles on any scale. It's not impossible, but it would be expensive and would take decades.
Hydrogen vehicles, yes, would be more efficient and more cost-effective than electric vehicles for most applications. But that's setting the bar pretty low. For most people and most purposes, traditional ICE vehicles will still be more practical.
See Related: Electric Vehicles Enter the 'Total Failure' Phase of Their Existence
The answer to all this? Well, that's simple: Let the market decide. We have been seeing how that can play out, as electric-only vehicles languish on dealer lots. I can see how an urban commuter may find an electric vehicle or a hydrogen vehicle desirable for, say, a 20-30 mile daily commute or running errands around town. And if that demand surfaces, then enterprising companies will start providing the infrastructure to support that - bottom-up, rather than the top-down, planned economy horse squeeze we see advocated by the Biden Administration and the "Green New Deal" cranks. Out here in the hinterlands, those of us who live 30-40 miles from the nearest grocery store and have occasional heavier chores, like towing trailers or hauling firewood, we'll keep our gasoline and Diesel-powered vehicles - you know, deciding for ourselves, as free people do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: markets aren't perfect, but when left alone, they generally get things right in the end.
