The Myth of a Hydrogen Economy – Watts Up With That?

From MasterResource

By Seth Cressey — March 27, 2025

“Scientists, engineers, and policymakers must reject symbolic solutions and focus on measurable, scalable, and scientifically robust strategies. Not all gases are equally dangerous, and not all solutions are equally wise.”

My new book No Son, There Won’t Be a Hydrogen Economy is a data-driven critique of the growing hype surrounding hydrogen as a future energy source. Its central argument: while hydrogen may have limited industrial and aerospace applications, the broader vision of a global “hydrogen economy” is fundamentally flawed—technically, economically, and especially environmentally.

The hydrogen movement, in short, can be likened to “cargo cult science”—a term popularized by physicist Richard Feynman to describe efforts that mimic the appearance of scientific rigor without engaging with its foundational principles.

The book dispels the prospects of hydrogen as a miracle climate solution. While hydrogen combustion or fuel cell use does not emit carbon dioxide (CO₂), hydrogen itself is not a primary energy source but an energy carrier. It must be produced using other forms of energy, typically through steam methane reforming (SMR) or electrolysis. Both methods are energy-intensive and often powered by fossil fuels.

Fugitive Emissions

Electrolysis, even when powered by renewables or nuclear energy, demands large quantities of electricity and pure water, and suffers from inefficiencies that undermine its climate benefits. But the most critical flaw lies not in the production pathway—but in what happens when hydrogen escapes.

Technically, hydrogen is incredibly difficult to contain. As the smallest and lightest molecule in the universe, it effortlessly leaks through seals, valves, and pipelines. These “fugitive emissions” are not rare accidents—they are a systemic feature of large-scale hydrogen handling where hydrogen is lost across production, compression, storage, transport, and end use. And once in the atmosphere, leaked hydrogen does not remain inert or harmless—it becomes an invisible climate threat.

Environmentally, this is where hydrogen’s dangers are most under appreciated. Fugitive hydrogen emissions disrupt atmospheric chemistry in a way that amplifies global warming. Specifically, hydrogen reacts with hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the atmosphere—the same radicals responsible for breaking down methane, a potent greenhouse gas. When atmospheric OH is depleted by hydrogen, methane lingers longer, increasing its warming impact. Hydrogen also indirectly contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both of which are significant climate forcers.

Implications

Recent studies have shown that hydrogen can have a global warming potential (GWP) up to 33 times greater than CO₂ over a 20-year timeframe when accounting for these indirect effects. Thus No Son, There Won’t Be a Hydrogen Economy leads to a controversial but scientifically grounded point: carbon dioxide, despite its demonization, is far better understood and less disruptive than hydrogen in key respects. While excessive CO₂ contributes to long-term warming, it does not deplete hydroxyl radicals, and it does not unpredictably alter the lifetimes of more potent greenhouse gases.

My book also documents that atmospheric CO₂ has positive externalities. Increased CO₂ levels have been shown to enhance plant growth through the well-documented CO₂ fertilization effect. This can improve agricultural yields, promote reforestation, and expand the carbon sink capacity of the biosphere—particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. While these benefits do not justify unregulated emissions, they underscore the importance of weighing the net climatic and ecological impact of all gases—rather than simplifying climate policy into binary categories of “clean” and “dirty.”

By contrast, hydrogen offers no such ecological upside. Its fugitive emissions introduce non-linear, hard-to-model disturbances into atmospheric chemistry, contributing to warming via complex and poorly understood feedback loops. This makes the widespread use of hydrogen not just inefficient, but counterproductive. Replacing one kilogram of natural gas with hydrogen—if it results in even modest leakage—can lead to higher net greenhouse emissions, not lower. Hydrogen’s environmental profile is especially dangerous because it escapes detection so easily and lacks regulatory oversight in many countries. Once released, it cannot be easily recaptured or offset, and its impact on the atmosphere can persist long after the initial emission.

Cressey devotes significant attention to the economic impracticalities as well. Green hydrogen currently costs between $4 and $7 per kilogram, far more than the gasoline-equivalent cost of natural gas. Transitioning existing infrastructure—homes, pipelines, industrial boilers, vehicles—to run on hydrogen would require trillions of dollars in retrofits and upgrades. He cites figures such as $4 trillion just to replace U.S. natural gas pipelines, and another $3 trillion to retrofit appliances. Despite these immense investments, hydrogen’s actual contribution to the energy mix remains negligible.

Real-world hydrogen demonstration projects—like China’s Kuqa facility, France’s Jupiter 1000, and the U.S. HECA plant—are examined with a critical lens. These cases often feature a pattern of high expectations followed by cost overruns, technical malfunctions, underperformance, and ultimately public subsidies to keep them afloat. Electrolyzers frequently cannot handle variable power inputs, fugitive leaks occur regularly, and promised carbon reductions fail to materialize. Cressey argues that the true climate benefit of these projects, once adjusted for leakage and inefficiencies, is negative or marginal at best.

Cressey’s overarching message is that hydrogen’s appeal is largely aesthetic and ideological. It has become a kind of symbolic fuel—clean at the point of use, futuristic in branding, and politically attractive. But when examined through the lens of chemistry and atmospheric science, it reveals itself to be deeply problematic. The hydrogen economy is not just an expensive detour—it may actively worsen the very problem it claims to solve.

Conclusion

There are other problems with hydrogen, including embrittling metals over time. Summed, the enthusiasm for hydrogen does not pass economic or environmental muster. The “clean fuel” narrative collapses under scrutiny—especially once fugitive emissions, atmospheric feedbacks, and the overlooked externalities of CO₂ are fully considered.

No Son, There Won’t Be a Hydrogen Economy calls on scientists, engineers, and policymakers to reject symbolic solutions and refocus on strategies grounded in measurable, scalable, and scientifically robust approaches. In doing so, the conversation goes from hype to hard evidence. Not all gases are equally dangerous, and not all solutions are equally wise.