Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or follow us on Google News!
Hydrogen advocates have a expertise for making grand claims whereas conveniently ignoring elementary physics. One among their favorites? That liquefying hydrogen solves its density downside, making it a super power service for long-distance transport. The fact? It’s like storing sizzling espresso in a thermos with a gap within the backside and calling it progress.
It is a companion article to the Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energy materials. In an analogous method to John Prepare dinner’s Skeptical Sciencethe intent is a speedy and catchy debunk, a second degree of element within the Companion to Cranky Stepdad vs Hydrogen for Energyafter which a fuller article because the third degree of element.
Cryogenic hydrogen is like utilizing a leaky thermos—extra power is misplaced within the course of than is saved.
The concept of liquid hydrogen (LH₂) transport sounds elegant on paper: compress and funky the lightest component right down to -253°C, ship it throughout the globe, and unleash a brand new period of fresh power. Sadly, this ignores some uncomfortable info. First, liquefying hydrogen is a thermodynamic nightmare, consuming a full third of its unique power content material (Cardella, Decker, & Klein, 2017). Second, sustaining hydrogen in a cryogenic state requires extremely superior insulation, and even then, you’re inevitable boil-off losses (Amin, Khan, & Bari, 2021). Third, the infrastructure to deal with LH₂ is dear, unwieldy, and extremely specialised (European Fee, 2022).
The Oversimplification Fallacy
The hydrogen foyer thrives on oversimplification. They promote LH₂ as a catch-all resolution with out addressing the power price of liquefaction, the infrastructure burden, or the truth that preserving hydrogen liquid is an ongoing battle in opposition to physics. If hydrogen is such an ideal service, why do we have to waste 30-40% of its power simply to make it dense sufficient to retailer (Cardella et al., 2017)? Think about dropping a 3rd of your groceries simply by bagging them.
Even after liquefaction, the struggle isn’t over. Boil-off losses vary from 0.3% to 1% per day (U.S. Division of Power, 2023). That’s like filling a fuel tank with premium gas, solely to look at it evaporate whereas your automobile is parked. In reality, the primary bulk cargo of LH₂ from Australia to Japan showcased precisely how impractical that is—costly infrastructure, large power losses, and elementary logistical complications (Hume, 2021).
The Infrastructure Downside: It’s Not Simply Costly, It’s Impractical
Storing and transporting liquid hydrogen just isn’t so simple as loading up a tanker. In contrast to LNG, which has well-established dealing with and storage strategies, LH₂ requires ultra-high-vacuum insulation, specialised supplies proof against hydrogen embrittlement, and excessive security measures because of hydrogen’s tendency to leak by means of even the smallest gaps (Amin et al., 2021). Oh, and let’s not neglect that hydrogen is the Houdini of parts—it will probably diffuse by means of steel, weakening infrastructure over time (Kamiya & Matsumoto, 2022).
Delivery hydrogen as LH₂ additionally requires a very new fleet of cryogenic tankers, which don’t exist at scale and received’t be low cost to construct. In accordance with BloombergNEF (2023), the price of LH₂ transport stays prohibitively excessive. In different phrases, the hydrogen business’s reliance on LH₂ is an answer on the lookout for an issue—and failing to unravel it.
Including to the impracticality, present LNG liquefaction vegetation and LNG tankers can’t merely be repurposed for hydrogen. LNG amenities function at round -162°C, considerably hotter than the -253°C required for LH₂ (European Fee, 2022). This implies the compressors, warmth exchangers, and insulation supplies in LNG vegetation must be totally redesigned to deal with the extra cooling calls for and hydrogen’s distinctive properties. Equally, LNG tankers, which depend on superior containment methods to handle pure fuel at cryogenic temperatures, usually are not constructed to accommodate the acute necessities of liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen’s low molecular weight and excessive diffusivity pose vital challenges, growing the danger of leaks and embrittlement of structural supplies (Kamiya & Matsumoto, 2022). The underside line? The prevailing LNG infrastructure just isn’t a shortcut to hydrogen transport—retrofitting it might be simply as pricey as constructing totally new LH₂ amenities from scratch.
Hydrogen advocates usually overlook the stark realities of liquid hydrogen’s hazards. Its excessive flammability and low ignition power make it a regulatory nightmare, resulting in strict transport restrictions, together with bans in tunnels and over sure bridges. A current incident in Germany underscores these risks: a hydrogen leak in a Linde truck trailer prompted an emergency evacuation on the Ems-Vechte-Ost motorway service station, which remained closed for about eight hours as police and fireplace brigades secured the realm (Hydrogen Perception, 2025). Such occasions spotlight the inherent dangers of LH₂, difficult its practicality as a mainstream power service. We truck liquid hydrogen right now solely when completely needed and with nicely skilled and licensed workers following permitted routes.
The Actual Takeaway: Simply As a result of You Can Doesn’t Imply You Ought to
On the finish of the day, cryogenic hydrogen transport is a textbook instance of technological optimism colliding with the legal guidelines of physics. Sure, you can liquefy hydrogen. Sure, you can ship it. However do you have to? Not in case you care about effectivity, price, or practicality.
Moderately than pretending that LH₂ is the silver bullet for hydrogen transport, power planners ought to acknowledge that transporting power as electrons by means of HVDC and distribution wires makes much more sense. Within the meantime, let’s name LH₂ what it’s: a leaky thermos with a really fancy lid.
References
- Amin, N., Khan, M. S., & Bari, S. (2021). Hydrogen storage and transportation: A overview of challenges and rising applied sciences. Renewable and Sustainable Power Critiques, 145111079.
- Bloomberg New Power Finance (BNEF). (2023). Hydrogen Transport and Storage: The Liquefaction Dilemma.
- Cardella, U., Decker, L., & Klein, H. (2017). Roadmap to economically viable hydrogen liquefaction. Worldwide Journal of Hydrogen Power, 42(19)13329–13338.
- European Fee. (2022). Hydrogen Storage and Distribution: Technical and Financial Limitations. Brussels: European Union.
- Hume, N. (2021, Oct 4). World’s first bulk hydrogen cargo underscores hurdles to world commerce. Monetary Instances.
- Hydrogen Perception. (2025, March 12). Hydrogen leak in Linde truck trailer causes emergency evacuation in Germany. Hydrogen Perception.
- Kamiya, S., & Matsumoto, R. (2022). The restrictions of liquid hydrogen as an power service. Power Studies, 83200–3214.
- U.S. Division of Power (DOE). (2023). Hydrogen Liquefaction and Cryogenic Storage: Limitations and Options. Washington, DC: DOE.
Whether or not you may have solar energy or not, please full our latest solar power survey.
Chip in just a few {dollars} a month to help support independent cleantech coverage that helps to speed up the cleantech revolution!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Wish to promote? Wish to recommend a visitor for our CleanTech Speak podcast? Contact us here.
Join our day by day publication for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or join our weekly one if day by day is simply too frequent.
CleanTechnica makes use of affiliate hyperlinks. See our coverage here.
CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy
