It's long past time for Japanese automakers to accept that currently hydrogen has lost the green fuel race in automobiles to battery electric. There's still room for hydrogen aviation, but I can't imagine choosing to purchase a hydrogen car in the 2020s
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
101 points (95.5% liked)
News
36583 readers
2129 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's still room for hydrogen aviation,
Is there really? I read the tanks make it impractical and that synthetic hydrocarbon jet fuel would be the likely fossil fuel replacement.
A number of major aerospace companies are working on the concept, so I wouldn't say it's not feasible. But the jury is very much still out.
I thinks it’s more that there is no acceptable solution for aviation yet, so yes there’s room
- batteries will never have sufficient power density
- plant based fuels are unlikely to scale
- hydrogen has technical challenges
- ammonia is dangerous
Every option has significant limitations but we need something to work
Solid state batteries may well be dense enough. Admittedly, that is something of a "two years away for the last ten years" problem.
It's also a safety issue. Now, the issues with safety in EVs is overblown, but commercial aviation has much tighter safety standards. Fortunately, solid state batteries fix that, too.
Airplane fuel is dangerous and full of lead. Every time people list disadvantages of alternative technologies, they pretend current fuels aren't a toxic dangerous mess.
Jet fuel doesn’t contain lead and never did.
AvGas does still have a lead problem and it was commonly used before the jet age, but is now relegated to small general aviation aircraft - a miniscule percentage. If you look at aviation as a whole, leaded gas usage is effectively zero.
Really the problem comes down to contamination at and near small historical airfields.
Don't forget the PFAS contamination from AFFF
You can always find more toxic stuff to worry about but fire fighting foam is independent of fuel toxicity and the concern is not lead
The other side of this is if there's a solid state lithium battery breakthrough. That would have both the energy density and safety margins to be usable for even Pacific flights.
Hydrogen is not easy as it seems. Nor is cheap but that's less important.
I've always gotten nothing but weird vibes from proponents of hydrogen. Everyone I've ever spoken with is either sceptical and waiting for it to make sense, an unshakeable zealot, or a speculative investor who hates BEVs.
It has a place in heavy industry. But right now green hydrogen is very scarce and expensive. Until that changes, it will be somewhat boutique.
99% of the world's hydrogen comes from natural gas steam reforming. That's why the vibes are so weird, it's a fossil fuel industry distraction
It can never work, the energy needed to make it is more then energy available from the H. It's like needing 1 barrel of oil to make 3/4 of a barrel of oil.
I'd say this is the least problematic aspect of all. If it was a viable energy storage solution, then it'd work even with higher energy input.
If that energy came from renewables then it could have some uses (wherever nothing but hydrogen will do), but yeah.
The case with transit is such that they keep trying to invent ways not to use trains, and we just have to tap our feet and wait for them to look facts in the face.
I guess you never been to the Alberta tar sands, that's exactly what they do with gas and water to make oil.
It takes huge energy to produce, store and transport. Just use that energy directly. Calling hydrogen stupid was the only smart thing Elon Musk has ever said.
I'm a proponent of Hydrogen if for no other reason than I find it foolish for the transportation industry to place all of it's eggs in one basket.
I'm glad the ICE hydrogen engines have been coming out. Not because they're directly useful. Outside of an engineering challenge (which is perfectly fine), they have no purpose outside of some racing applications.
I like them because it flags people who obviously have no idea what they're talking about. They like ICEs for what it is. And I do actually get that; from an engineering perspective, there's a lot of fascinating things going on inside there. However, efficiency was already hydrogen's biggest weakness. Fuel cells are 40-60% efficient, and is only one part of the hydrogen chain. You're going to replace that part of a chain with something that has traditionally struggled to get 25% efficiency? Why? You're doubling down on hydrogen's biggest weakness. This is the opposite of min-maxing.
So anyway, if they bring that up as anything other than engineering and racing purposes, they're a moron.
Yeah I've seen those, and agree. It's cool that you can do that stuff, but it's not gonna happen. Just use BEV already and build more trains.
hydrogen is very explosive, volatile gas.
Hindenburg joins the chat. Not only that, also really hard to contain and other not so nice features.
I believe that it burns, but it doesn't explode.
So is airplane fuel. That's the point.
No, jet A is basically kerosene. Flammable liquid yes, but not quite as dangerous as hydrogen gas.
I think you're forgetting 100LL/avgas which is gasoline with tetraethyl-lead. That's inflammable
brake failure
flashbacks to 15 years ago
"Toyota. Moving forward. (Even when you don't want to.)"
Uh...black box data revealed in court those crying Karens were lying.
Good, now we can finally bury that dead end technology.
No, it is not worth "taking every possible approach and finding out what works". This is a faux-reasonable argument that catches people who haven't been following trends over the past 20 years. We already did that, and now is the time to deploy what works. Batteries won, deal with it.
I was actually really excited for hydrogen tech. Like a refuelling station just needs sunlight and water. But Toyota really rat fucked themselves, and caused so much damage by relentlessly attacking battery electric vehicles.
By that logic an electric "fuel" station would only need sunlight, and less of it since you don't have to use electricity to convert from water to hydrogen, so that the car can convert hydrogen to electricity.
This article neglects to mention what I am wondering most about: is there any merit to this case, are similar lawsuits staeted in Europe for example? Or is this another example of the US administration, funded by many many oil and gas dollars, going after the commercial enemies of its main financial supporters?
they are 10years too late to develop the tech, when ev has been making strides ever since. one of the shortlived X-FILE spinoffs where the 3 scientist(technicians in the orginal x-files) developed a hydrogen fuel cell tech, or equivalent they dint go on "patent/market it" because it, something along the lines of becoming to eco-destructive wanting(building more roads, infrastructure)