Hydrogen excitement is feverish as billions in federal funds loom, the industry scrambles to get off the ground, and politicians race other governments to gain an investment edge. But things could easily go sideways, turning into a taxpayer boondoggle that increases climate pollution if the policies supporting hydrogen aren’t designed correctly.
Hydrogen will be important for achieving our climate goals, but it can do so if and only if it is truly clean and directed to appropriate applications. Straying from this narrow path can reverse, delay, or raise the cost of emission reductions while failing environmental justice goals, potentially dooming the hydrogen industry. This paper analyzes 12 potential end-uses for hydrogen to show which work and which are a waste of time:
- Electrolytic hydrogen that is not truly clean will worsen climate pollution regardless of its downstream use, with the potential exception of steelmaking.
- Hydrogen used for energy (i.e., in buildings, vehicles, industrial heat, and most power applications) can’t compete with alternative clean technologies, meaning most investments in these sectors—including heavy-duty trucking and high-temperature heat—will strand assets and cost jobs when subsidies run out.
- Hydrogen used as a chemical feedstock (i.e., for marine fuels, aviation fuels, petrochemicals, steelmaking, refining, and ammonia) will be competitive with alternatives over the long term, meaning most investments in these sectors will create long-term economic value and be important to a clean economy.
The risk is high for hydrogen investments to do more harm than good. But there’s still a chance to set a course where hydrogen delivers on its promises if government officials act wisely.