What Happened To The Hydrogen Economy?

Forbes

28-05-2025

U.S. President George W. Bush, center, talks to reporters while visiting North America's first ... More retail hydrogen and gasoline fueling station in Washington D.C., May 25, 2005. Bush took part in a demonstration of fueling a General Motors hydrogen powered car. (Photo by Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images)
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush offered a bold vision of a cleaner energy future. Standing before Congress and the nation, he announced a $1.2 billion initiative to develop hydrogen-powered vehicles, proclaiming that 'the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free.'
The appeal was clear: a shift away from imported oil and a meaningful reduction in vehicle emissions. After all, the combustion product of hydrogen is just water.
That child would be turning 22 this year. But the hydrogen car that was supposed to carry them into a cleaner future is still not in their driveway. In fact, outside of a few test markets, it's not in anyone's driveway.
So, what happened?
Bush's speech wasn't just political theater. At the time, hydrogen fuel cells were seen as a potential long-term alternative to gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. Automakers like Toyota and Honda were investing heavily in hydrogen vehicle prototypes. And with oil prices rising, the idea of tapping into the universe's most abundant element for clean energy made good sense—at least on paper.
But two decades later, the hydrogen economy has failed to materialize in any meaningful way for the average consumer. The reasons are complex, but five key factors stand out.
Hydrogen is a gas with low volumetric energy density. It must be transported from its production facility to its final destination, and that transport is energy intensive. Cars then require an entirely separate refueling infrastructure from gasoline or electric vehicles.
That's not a small hurdle—it's a multi-billion-dollar roadblock. Unlike electric vehicles, which can charge at home or increasingly in public parking lots, hydrogen vehicles depend on specialized high-pressure refueling stations that are costly to build and maintain.
Today, the U.S. has fewer than 60 public hydrogen stations, and nearly all of them are in California. Without nationwide infrastructure, widespread consumer adoption remains elusive. And without consumers, infrastructure investment remains commercially unjustifiable. It's a chicken-and-egg problem with no clear resolution in sight.
Most of today's hydrogen—about 95% globally—is produced from natural gas in a process that emits significant carbon dioxide. This has been dubbed 'gray hydrogen' and is cheap but dirty when it comes to carbon emissions. 'Green hydrogen,' made via electrolysis of water powered by renewable energy, avoids emissions but costs two to three times more to produce.
Government subsidies are available that provide incentives for green hydrogen production, but President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would terminate the 45V tax credit for hydrogen starting in 2026, potentially derailing nascent green hydrogen projects.
Electrolyzer technology is improving, and costs are slowly declining. But green hydrogen still struggles to compete with both gasoline and electricity from the grid. Until production costs drop substantially—or carbon pricing levels the playing field—hydrogen for transportation will remain economically disadvantaged.
In 2003, hydrogen fuel cells and battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) were competing for the future of zero-emission transportation. Hydrogen had the early momentum—Toyota's first fuel-cell vehicle hit U.S. roads in 2002. But then came Tesla, followed by a wide variety of electric vehicle offerings.
Over the past 15 years, improvements in lithium-ion battery density, charging infrastructure, and manufacturing scale have made BEVs the dominant clean car technology. The industry bet on batteries, and it paid off. Today, global automakers are planning to invest $1.2 trillion in electric vehicles and batteries through 2030, with virtually no comparable commitment to hydrogen-powered cars.
Inconsistent energy policies across different presidential administrations are a challenge for every energy option. While the Bush administration gave hydrogen an initial boost, policy support fizzled under subsequent administrations. President Obama emphasized battery-electric vehicles and solar, while President Trump focused on fossil fuels. Only recently—under the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law—has hydrogen regained some federal momentum.
But even now, the lion's share of support goes toward hydrogen's industrial applications—steel, ammonia, long-haul trucking—not personal vehicles. Without sustained, targeted subsidies and coordination, hydrogen cars may remain a niche solution in a battery-first market.
One of hydrogen's biggest drawbacks is its energy inefficiency. To power a hydrogen vehicle, you must first generate electricity, use that electricity to split water into hydrogen, compress and transport the hydrogen, then convert it back into power for the vehicle. Each step incurs energy losses.
In contrast, battery-electric vehicles store electricity directly, with far less waste. The end result? A BEV can use renewable energy three times more efficiently than a hydrogen-powered car. That math doesn't favor hydrogen—at least not for passenger vehicles.
Despite these challenges, hydrogen is one of the most important industrial chemicals globally. In fact, it's gaining traction in sectors where batteries struggle—like heavy trucking, shipping, and aviation. Hydrogen is also essential if we are to decarbonize certain industrial processes, such as steelmaking and fertilizer production.
The International Energy Agency projects that clean hydrogen could play a significant role in a net-zero emissions future. But that role is more likely to involve powering cargo ships and industrial furnaces than personal transportation.
To his credit, George W. Bush's vision for a hydrogen economy was based on a desire to innovate, reduce emissions, and secure America's energy future. But the execution proved far more difficult than the ambition.
In 2025, hydrogen still holds promise—but it's not the silver bullet that many once hoped. The path forward will require technological breakthroughs, regulatory clarity, and realistic expectations about where hydrogen truly adds value. Which, honestly, all of which was said in 2003.
Bush was right to dream big. But as the past two decades have shown, turning that dream into reality involved a lot more hurdles than many proponents initially envisioned.