Hydrogen Kept Failing The Test — And Getting Another Test
AI-summarised brief · reviewed before publication
Michael Barnard’s retrospective analysis argues that hydrogen’s persistence stems from institutional inertia rather than technical merit. Despite well-documented thermodynamic inefficiencies and worsening economics, incumbent gas companies and automakers promoted hydrogen to preserve existing assets, skills, and infrastructure. Direct electrification threatens the strategic value of pipelines, processing plants, and combustion-engine expertise. Consequently, these entities favored hydrogen pathways to maintain relevance. Governments further entrenched this trajectory by establishing subsidy programs and infrastructure targets without robust economic analysis. The European Court of Auditors noted that EU hydrogen policy targets lacked sufficient scrutiny yet already influenced billions in investment. By 2025, actual project costs significantly exceeded institutional forecasts. The article posits that confirmation bias and loss aversion are secondary to the primary driver: protecting legacy industrial ecosystems. Hydrogen serves as a political tool to delay the transition to direct electrification, allowing established industries to retain control over energy distribution and manufacturing landscapes despite clear evidence of its inferiority.
💡 Why It Matters
- · The analysis exposes how entrenched industrial interests manipulate policy to protect obsolete infrastructure, potentially delaying the most efficient decarbonization pathways.
- · Recognizing this dynamic is crucial for policymakers aiming to allocate resources toward genuinely viable clean energy solutions rather than subsidizing economic inertia.
