Debunking The Myth: Liquid Hydrogen Tanker Trucks & Ships Don’t Solve Hydrogen’s Problems

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Hydrogen advocates have a talent for making grand claims while conveniently ignoring fundamental physics. One of their favorites? That liquefying hydrogen solves its density problem, making it an ideal energy carrier for long-distance transport. The reality? It’s like storing hot coffee in a thermos with a hole in the bottom and calling it progress.

This is a companion article to the Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy material. In a similar manner to John Cook’s Skeptical Science, the intent is a rapid and catchy debunk, a second level of detail in the Companion to Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy, and then a fuller article as the third level of detail.

Cryogenic hydrogen is like using a leaky thermos—more energy is lost in the process than is saved.

The idea of liquid hydrogen (LH₂) transport sounds elegant on paper: compress and cool the lightest element down to -253°C, ship it across the globe, and unleash a new era of clean energy. Sadly, this ignores some uncomfortable facts. First, liquefying hydrogen is a thermodynamic nightmare, consuming a full third of its original energy content (Cardella, Decker, & Klein, 2017). Second, maintaining hydrogen in a cryogenic state requires incredibly advanced insulation, and even then, you’re looking at inevitable boil-off losses (Amin, Khan, & Bari, 2021). Third, the infrastructure to handle LH₂ is expensive, unwieldy, and highly specialized (European Commission, 2022).

The Oversimplification Fallacy

The hydrogen lobby thrives on oversimplification. They sell LH₂ as a catch-all solution without addressing the energy cost of liquefaction, the infrastructure burden, or the fact that keeping hydrogen liquid is an ongoing battle against physics. If hydrogen is such a perfect carrier, why do we need to waste 30-40% of its energy just to make it dense enough to store (Cardella et al., 2017)? Imagine losing a third of your groceries just by bagging them.

Even after liquefaction, the fight isn’t over. Boil-off losses range from 0.3% to 1% per day (U.S. Department of Energy, 2023). That’s like filling a gas tank with premium fuel, only to watch it evaporate while your car is parked. In fact, the first bulk shipment of LH₂ from Australia to Japan showcased exactly how impractical this is—expensive infrastructure, massive energy losses, and fundamental logistical headaches (Hume, 2021).

The Infrastructure Problem: It’s Not Just Expensive, It’s Impractical

Storing and transporting liquid hydrogen is not as simple as loading up a tanker. Unlike LNG, which has well-established handling and storage methods, LH₂ requires ultra-high-vacuum insulation, specialized materials resistant to hydrogen embrittlement, and extreme safety measures due to hydrogen’s tendency to leak through even the smallest gaps (Amin et al., 2021). Oh, and let’s not forget that hydrogen is the Houdini of elements—it can diffuse through metal, weakening infrastructure over time (Kamiya & Matsumoto, 2022).

Shipping hydrogen as LH₂ also requires a completely new fleet of cryogenic tankers, which don’t exist at scale and won’t be cheap to build. According to BloombergNEF (2023), the cost of LH₂ transport remains prohibitively high. In other words, the hydrogen industry’s reliance on LH₂ is a solution looking for a problem—and failing to solve it.

Adding to the impracticality, existing LNG liquefaction plants and LNG tankers cannot simply be repurposed for hydrogen. LNG facilities operate at around -162°C, significantly warmer than the -253°C required for LH₂ (European Commission, 2022). This means the compressors, heat exchangers, and insulation materials in LNG plants would have to be entirely redesigned to handle the additional cooling demands and hydrogen’s unique properties. Similarly, LNG tankers, which rely on advanced containment systems to manage natural gas at cryogenic temperatures, are not built to accommodate the extreme requirements of liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen’s low molecular weight and high diffusivity pose significant challenges, increasing the risk of leaks and embrittlement of structural materials (Kamiya & Matsumoto, 2022). The bottom line? The existing LNG infrastructure is not a shortcut to hydrogen transport—retrofitting it would be just as costly as building entirely new LH₂ facilities from scratch.

Hydrogen advocates often overlook the stark realities of liquid hydrogen’s hazards. Its extreme flammability and low ignition energy make it a regulatory nightmare, leading to strict transport restrictions, including bans in tunnels and over certain bridges. A recent incident in Germany underscores these dangers: a hydrogen leak in a Linde truck trailer prompted an emergency evacuation at the Ems-Vechte-Ost motorway service station, which remained closed for about eight hours as police and fire brigades secured the area (Hydrogen Insight, 2025). Such events highlight the inherent risks of LH₂, challenging its practicality as a mainstream energy carrier. We truck liquid hydrogen today only when absolutely necessary and with well trained and certified staff following approved routes.

The Real Takeaway: Just Because You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should

At the end of the day, cryogenic hydrogen transport is a textbook example of technological optimism colliding with the laws of physics. Yes, you can liquefy hydrogen. Yes, you can ship it. But should you? Not if you care about efficiency, cost, or practicality.

Rather than pretending that LH₂ is the silver bullet for hydrogen transport, energy planners should acknowledge that transporting energy as electrons through HVDC and distribution wires makes a lot more sense. In the meantime, let’s call LH₂ what it is: a leaky thermos with a very fancy lid.

References

• Amin, N., Khan, M. S., & Bari, S. (2021). Hydrogen storage and transportation: A review of challenges and emerging technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111079.
• Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Transport and Storage: The Liquefaction Dilemma.
• Cardella, U., Decker, L., & Klein, H. (2017). Roadmap to economically viable hydrogen liquefaction. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(19), 13329–13338.
• European Commission. (2022). Hydrogen Storage and Distribution: Technical and Economic Barriers. Brussels: European Union.
• Hume, N. (2021, Oct 4). World’s first bulk hydrogen shipment underscores hurdles to global trade. Financial Times.
• Hydrogen Insight. (2025, March 12). Hydrogen leak in Linde truck trailer causes emergency evacuation in Germany. Hydrogen Insight.
• Kamiya, S., & Matsumoto, R. (2022). The limitations of liquid hydrogen as an energy carrier. Energy Reports, 8, 3200–3214.
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Liquefaction and Cryogenic Storage: Barriers and Solutions. Washington, DC: DOE.