If you’re launching a rocket, sure. If cost or difficulty matters in any way compared to raw mass, not really.
It was talked about for cars where density kinda matters, but you could put them in a fuel cell that way instead of just burning it, and I’m not sure if it was ever anywhere close to economical.
The cost probably will go down, and with any luck the cost of polluting will go up, but electricity is going to be more practical for most things.
Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels.
I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It’s ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it’s not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost.
Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it’s some local issue doing it.
(Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn’t mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it’s closer to rockets. I don’t know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that’s where e-fuel comes up a lot)
Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn’t be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated.
We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen.
Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You’re the only person I’ve heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you’re saying.
Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn’t matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let’s all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars.
As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like “I need to cross the Australian outback”.
There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I’m not sure if it’s still being made or they gave up.
It’s important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don’t want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don’t need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can’t show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can’t do things like crossing the Outback.
If you’re launching a rocket, sure. If cost or difficulty matters in any way compared to raw mass, not really.
It was talked about for cars where density kinda matters, but you could put them in a fuel cell that way instead of just burning it, and I’m not sure if it was ever anywhere close to economical.
The cost probably will go down, and with any luck the cost of polluting will go up, but electricity is going to be more practical for most things.
Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels.
I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It’s ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it’s not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost.
Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it’s some local issue doing it.
(Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn’t mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it’s closer to rockets. I don’t know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that’s where e-fuel comes up a lot)
Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn’t be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated.
We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen.
Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You’re the only person I’ve heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you’re saying.
Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn’t matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let’s all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars.
I did not say you can’t have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies.
As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like “I need to cross the Australian outback”.
There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I’m not sure if it’s still being made or they gave up.
Millions, sure. But that’s still a niche.
It’s important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don’t want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don’t need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can’t show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can’t do things like crossing the Outback.