Hydrogen has potential as an energy source but faces significant hurdles. It’s not a primary energy source like oil or coal; it’s an energy carrier, meaning it must be produced using other energy sources, like natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. This process—often via electrolysis or steam reforming—can be energy-intensive and costly. Green hydrogen, made using renewable energy, is the cleanest option but currently accounts for less than 1% of global hydrogen production due to high costs and limited infrastructure. Most hydrogen today (over 90%) is "grey," made from fossil fuels, which generates significant CO2 emissions—about 10 tons of CO2 per ton of hydrogen.

As a fuel, hydrogen is versatile: it can power fuel cells for vehicles, generate electricity, or heat buildings. Its energy density is high (120 MJ/kg vs. gasoline’s ~44 MJ/kg), and it produces only water when burned or used in fuel cells, making it appealing for decarbonizing sectors like heavy industry and aviation. However, storage and transport are challenging. Hydrogen has low density, requiring compression or liquefaction, which eats up 10-30% of its energy content. It also embrittles metals, necessitating specialized pipelines, and leaks can pose safety risks due to its flammability.

Infrastructure is another bottleneck. Building a hydrogen economy requires massive investment—estimates suggest $600 billion by 2050 for global supply chains. Current production is ~90 million tons annually, mostly for industrial uses like ammonia production, but scaling up for energy applications would need a 5-10x increase. Some countries, like Japan and Germany, are betting big on hydrogen, with projects like Japan’s $3 billion hydrogen import plan. But costs remain high: green hydrogen is $3-6/kg, compared to $1-2/kg for grey hydrogen and far pricier than natural gas.

On the flip side, renewables like solar and wind are cheaper and more mature for electricity generation, and batteries dominate for light vehicles. Hydrogen’s edge is in hard-to-electrify sectors—think steel production or long-haul shipping—where batteries fall short. Pilot projects, like hydrogen-powered trains in Germany or steel plants in Sweden, show promise, but scaling globally is a decades-long challenge.

Viability depends on context. If renewable energy costs keep dropping and carbon pricing ramps up, green hydrogen could compete by 2030-2040. But without policy support, cheap renewables, and tech breakthroughs in storage and transport, it’s a tough sell against established alternatives. Posts on X reflect this split: optimists see it as a climate game-changer, while skeptics point to inefficiencies and hype. Both have points, but the truth lies in execution—hydrogen’s not a silver bullet, but it’s a piece of the puzzle.

Thanks for an easy to understand explanation of this process.

Hydrogen is not an energy source.

I know of places that have tons of the stuff such as our sun and zillions of other stars, but I don't think we can pump it out of the ground or extract it from farts, etc. It doesn't like being unbound to other elements and the process of breaking these bonds is mighty expensive.

But thanks for your enlightening piece!

"It doesn't like being unbound to other elements". Exactly. when you have unbound hydrogen, that has a lot of potential energy, released when bonding with something like Oxygen, resulting in water vapor.

Yes, it takes energy to separate it. The point of this article is that the new invention lowers the cost of separating and storing the H2.

One notices that there are practically no innovations in new energy coming from the US.

then that would be honest (if true.) And the facts could be tested against many other methods of doing the same.

As you and others are saying, it is a source of "potential energy", otherwise known as a fuel that can be stored and used for future needs.

Of course, marketeers are not engineers. And none of them are the venture capitalists driving this drivel.

But that is everywhere. When was the last government action against any company for false advertising? (Well, California is going after Tesla for their FSD claims which are as false as can be.)

Petroleum is stored potential energy, just like hydrogen. It is just that coal and oil were stored for millions of years. The energy source was nuclear (radiating from the sun and captured by plants that were reduced to hydrocarbons.)

I don't pretend to understand the science.

But I also recently saw some news article that we have basically tipped to having green energy being cheaper now than oil or coal or any fossil fuels. I think we might actually be able to pull this thing out of our asses. Wouldn't that be awesome?

Everyday I am seeing inventions and innovations around the planet from European countries to different places in South America and Africa coming up with new ways of pulling water out of the air, etc
Regardless of how fucked up things are in our country, I have faith in humanity LOL

This is corporate propaganda disguised as an article.

High-Performing and Flexible Advertising Formats

We offer a variety of advertising options to fit your needs and objectives:

Sponsored articles: Share your message with compelling, editorial-style features crafted to engage our readers and build credibility.

https://www.energy-reporters.com/advertise/

For me connecting the dots included why annex Canada, acquire Greenland, steal the Panama Canal? These actions imo indicate the weather projections (from the military/now no longe published) point to Climate Catastrophe. It is no longer try to prevent, but who gets to survive.

I gotta say, I’m not all that impressed.

Solhyd does better than that, and “… contains low cost, abundant materials and the use of precious metals is excluded."
https://solhyd.eu/en/


It requires no water supply, no external wiring (although if you want to apply an external source for 24 hour hydrogen production, you can do that.)

You know, like dirigibles.

You know, like jetliners?