Debunking the Myth: Hydrogen’s Abundance Does Not Equal Accessibility – CleanTechnica

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

---

Last Updated on: 9th March 2025, 07:08 pm

Saying hydrogen is abundant is like saying gold is easy to get—it’s out there, but extracting it is hard, expensive, and energy-intensive. The problem isn’t scarcity; the problem is accessibility.

Hydrogen advocates often parrot the line that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, implying that it’s naturally available as a clean fuel. This is, at best, misleading and, at worst, a deliberate attempt to obscure the significant technical and economic barriers to its widespread adoption. The reality is that while hydrogen exists everywhere, it’s not in a usable form. Extracting it requires significant energy, and handling it demands costly infrastructure.

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.

Saying hydrogen is abundant is like saying gold is easy to get—it’s out there, but you have to work hard to extract it.

This article critically examines the claim that hydrogen is “readily available” by dissecting the energy requirements, production inefficiencies, and infrastructure constraints that make it one of the least accessible energy carriers.

The Scientific Reality: Hydrogen is Not Freely Available

The atomic makeup of the universe doesn’t translate to real-world energy solutions. Hydrogen doesn’t exist as a free gas on Earth—it’s bound in compounds like water (H₂O) or hydrocarbons (CH₄, C₂H₆). To obtain pure hydrogen, we must break these molecular bonds, and that process is neither free nor easy.

Ocko & Hamburg (2022) emphasize that while hydrogen is theoretically abundant, its presence in a usable form is nonexistent. The energy required to isolate hydrogen from compounds is substantial, reducing its viability as an energy source.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that over 96% of global hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels, primarily through steam methane reforming (SMR). This means the so-called abundant hydrogen is still overwhelmingly reliant on carbon-intensive processes.

According to Glenk & Reichelstein (2019), even under optimal conditions, producing hydrogen requires massive electricity inputs, making it economically impractical compared to direct electrification.

Hydrogen abundance is a scientific curiosity, not an argument for its viability as an energy source.

Producing hydrogen in a usable form requires significant energy input. The two primary methods are electrolysis and steam methane reforming (SMR), each presenting fundamental inefficiencies.

Electrolysis splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. While the concept sounds appealing, the efficiency problem is enormous. Electrolysis efficiency rates range from 60% to 80%, meaning at least 20% of the input electricity is lost immediately. Transporting, compressing, and converting hydrogen back to electricity via fuel cells results in additional energy losses. By the end of the chain, over 70% of the original energy is lost (IRENA, 2022). The IEA (2021) points out that for green hydrogen to be viable, it would require surplus renewable energy, which is in short supply and better used for direct electrification.

SMR is the primary method for producing hydrogen, accounting for 96% of today’s supply. The process relies on natural gas and emits significant CO₂.

The IEA (2021) estimates that 830 million metric tons of CO₂ are emitted annually from hydrogen production—comparable to the combined emissions of the UK and Indonesia. Even with carbon capture and storage (CCS), SMR hydrogen remains only marginally less carbon-intensive, while CCS adds costs and reduces efficiency.

Hydrogen production is neither free nor green—it is either energy-wasteful or fossil-fuel-dependent.

Beyond production, hydrogen faces enormous barriers in transportation, storage, and end-use applications. Hydrogen is the lightest element, meaning it has low volumetric energy density. Storing it requires extreme compression (700 bar) or liquefaction (-253°C), both of which require energy and expensive infrastructure (IRENA, 2022). The compression and liquefaction processes alone can consume up to 40% of the energy contained in the hydrogen (DOE, 2020).

Existing natural gas pipelines cannot handle hydrogen without modification due to hydrogen embrittlement, which weakens steel infrastructure (IEA, 2021). Converting hydrogen into ammonia or other carriers for transport adds another 15–30% energy loss (IRENA, 2022).

Simply put, even if hydrogen was abundant and cheap to produce (which it isn’t), getting it where it needs to be remains an expensive challenge.

Advocates of a hydrogen economy often ignore the fundamental economic obstacles. Green hydrogen costs have been revealed through final investment decisions (FIDs) in 2024, with projects pricing hydrogen at $5 to $9 per kg. In contrast, fossil-based hydrogen remains at $1 to $2 per kg, and we don’t use it for energy today because it’s too expensive. Adding to the challenge, BloombergNEF (BNEF) has recently tripled its 2050 hydrogen cost projections, highlighting that production costs are not falling as quickly as once anticipated. By comparison, electrification—such as battery storage or direct grid use—continues to be significantly more efficient and cost-effective.

Glenk & Reichelstein (2019) conclude that even with declining renewable energy prices, hydrogen will remain more expensive than direct electrification for most applications. This isn’t new news, as I and others have been pointing this out for years or decades, with clear cost workups explaining why.

Scaling a hydrogen economy requires trillions of dollars in infrastructure—pipelines, storage, refueling stations—which few investors are willing to commit to when superior alternatives exist (DOE, 2020).

Hydrogen is not cheap, scalable, or freely available. It is an essential industrial feedstock that requires decarbonization, not the backbone of a clean energy future.

The claim that hydrogen is abundant and naturally available is a red herring designed to obscure its fundamental inefficiencies. The facts are clear:

Hydrogen must be extracted from compounds at high energy costs. It is overwhelmingly derived from fossil fuels today. Even when produced via electrolysis, it suffers massive energy losses. Transporting and storing hydrogen is expensive and technically challenging. The economic case for hydrogen is weak compared to direct electrification. Hydrogen has a role to play in hard-to-decarbonize sectors—like steel production, ammonia synthesis, and long-haul aviation—but as a broad energy solution, it fails every practical test.

Instead of chasing the hydrogen mirage, policymakers and investors should focus on electrification, grid modernization, and battery storage, which offer far superior efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Saying hydrogen is abundant is like saying gold is easy to get—it’s out there, but you need a fortune to extract it. The clean energy transition needs real solutions, not misleading narratives.

References

• BloombergNEF (BNEF). (2024). Hydrogen market outlook: Cost projections tripled for 2050. BloombergNEF.
• Glenk, G., & Reichelstein, S. (2019). Economics of converting renewable power to hydrogen. Nature Energy, 4(3), 216–222.
• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). Global Hydrogen Review 2021. Paris: IEA.
• International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2022). The Role of Green Hydrogen in Energy Transitions.
• Ocko, I. B., & Hamburg, S. P. (2022). Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(12), 9349–9368.
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2020). Hydrogen Strategy: Enabling a Low-Carbon Economy. Washington, DC: DOE.