I remember being taught in school that hydrogen was the future of energy—an efficient, clean fuel created from water using renewable energy, with water as the only byproduct. All we needed was the infrastructure.
But reality hasn’t matched the theory. Green hydrogen is hard to produce, and the lack of infrastructure is a major barrier. Without users, there’s no incentive to build it, and without infrastructure, users can’t adopt it.
I agree with the article that hydrogen likely isn’t the future of transport. Electric vehicles are easier to deploy and already replacing diesel buses and trucks.
Still, hydrogen has potential—especially as an energy storage medium. Renewables like wind and solar are variable, and while nuclear is steady, it doesn’t store energy. Today, we heavily rely on coal, gas, and oil to fill the gaps between supply and demand.
Hydrogen could fill that role cleanly: store excess renewable energy and release it when needed. Batteries are an option too, but lithium mining is polluting and might be better reserved for vehicles. Hydroelectric is great but geographically limited.
So hydrogen’s future may not be in transport, but in stabilizing a clean energy grid. Ironically, that’s the role that threatens fossil fuel companies most—perhaps why their focus has been on hydrogen for transport instead?