Debunking The Myth: Hydrogen Fuel Cells Aren’t More Efficient Than Alternatives

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

Last Updated on: 12th March 2025, 01:00 pm

Hydrogen is often promoted as a clean and efficient energy carrier, but its real-world efficiency is frequently overstated. Proponents of hydrogen fuel cells highlight their conversion efficiencies of 50–60%, comparing them favorably to internal combustion engines (ICEs). However, this selective framing ignores the full energy pathway, from hydrogen production to end use. When these losses are accounted for, hydrogen emerges as an inefficient and impractical alternative to direct electrification.

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.

Using hydrogen for energy is like buying a fancy blender when a knife gets the job done quicker and cheaper.

The fundamental flaw in hydrogen advocacy is its focus on the efficiency of fuel cells in isolation rather than on the complete energy cycle. Unlike battery-electric systems, which retain 80–90% of their input energy (Kendall, 2018), hydrogen-based energy pathways suffer losses at multiple stages. Hydrogen production is the first source of inefficiency. Most hydrogen today is derived from steam methane reforming (SMR), which results in substantial energy losses and carbon emissions. Even green hydrogen, produced via electrolysis, retains only 60–70% of the input energy (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2023).

Compression, liquefaction, and transport introduce further inefficiencies. Hydrogen is the lightest element, requiring compression to 700 bar or liquefaction at -253°C for storage and transport. These processes consume another 10–30% of the original energy (California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2022). Finally, when hydrogen reaches its end-use stage, fuel cell conversion suffers from additional losses. While hydrogen fuel cells convert hydrogen to electricity with a theoretical efficiency of 50–60%, real-world conditions, including system inefficiencies and auxiliary loads, reduce this figure significantly (Rabbani & Grant, 2020).

Like internal combustion engines, which operate at varying RPMs and rarely achieve their peak efficiency in real-world driving, fuel cells also experience fluctuations in efficiency due to changes in load demand, temperature variations, and degradation over time. Studies have shown that fuel cells in actual vehicle operation often achieve efficiencies closer to 40–50%, rather than the optimal 50–60% claimed in controlled conditions.

When analyzed from a well-to-wheel perspective, hydrogen fuel cells do not present a compelling advantage over existing technologies. Multiple studies have demonstrated that battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) retain 80–90% of input energy, making them far superior to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), which only retain 20–30% after accounting for all losses (Bossel, 2006). Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles (HEVs) achieve comparable or better efficiency than HFCVs, without the infrastructure challenges associated with hydrogen (Bloomberg New Energy Finance [BNEF], 2023). Additionally, grid electrification is inherently more efficient than hydrogen-based energy storage, as electricity transmission losses are far lower than hydrogen transport and conversion losses (International Council on Clean Transportation [ICCT], 2022).

The narrative that hydrogen is an efficient energy carrier often relies on cherry-picked data. While hydrogen fuel cells may indeed be more efficient than internal combustion engines at the point of use, this ignores the inefficiencies inherent in hydrogen production, storage, and transportation. In contrast, direct electrification bypasses these losses, making it the superior choice for most applications (Temple, 2021).

Given the substantial energy losses associated with hydrogen, it is difficult to justify its use over direct electrification in most scenarios. Battery-electric vehicles and grid storage solutions offer far higher efficiencies with fewer infrastructure challenges. While hydrogen may have niche applications in sectors where direct electrification is impractical, such as certain industrial processes and long-duration energy storage, its widespread adoption in transportation and general energy use is neither economical nor sustainable.

Rather than investing in an energy carrier that discards 70% of its input energy, policymakers and industries should prioritize direct electrification, which maximizes efficiency and minimizes waste. As the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, hydrogen is not the silver bullet it is often portrayed to be.

References

• Bossel, U. (2006). Does a hydrogen economy make sense? Proceedings of the IEEE, 94(10), 1826–1837.
• Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Fuel Cells vs. Combustion Engines: The Efficiency Debate.
• California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2022). Well-to-Wheel Energy Efficiency of Alternative Fuel Vehicles.
• International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). (2022). Efficiency Losses in Hydrogen Supply Chains for Transport Applications.
• Kendall, K. (2018). Progress in fuel cell efficiency and durability: A review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(5), 2303–2315.
• Rabbani, R., & Grant, G. (2020). Well-to-wheel efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: A comparative analysis. Energy Reports, 6, 98–110.
• Temple, J. (2021, June 1). Why hydrogen cars are still not a thing. MIT Technology Review.
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report. Washington, DC: DOE.