Hydrogen skeptics use the argument that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get from it. It’s a true statement, but is it a fair statement? The energy equation for producing any type of fuel results in an energy loss. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that nothing can be 100% efficient.

When scientists and researchers calculate energy use for fuel production they look well to tank;  starting with feedstock and ending with delivery to the vehicle. For hydrogen, they assume production, delivery to the station, compression and dispensing. According to California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the most efficient process is making hydrogen is from natural gas at a central production plant, a process that is about 71% efficient. The least is making hydrogen from biomass gasification, which is about 51% efficient.

For electricity, production includes making electricity, transmitting it, delivering it to an outlet and then into the vehicle. The most efficient process is burning natural gas in a combined cycle combustion turbine (CCCT) at about 52% efficient. The least is burning natural gas in a single cycle combustion turbine (SCCT) at about 31.5% efficient.

Comparing hydrogen and electricity to gasoline production becomes complicated. While gasoline has essentially one production method, hydrogen and electricity each have several production methods. CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard considers a “California mix” for hydrogen and electricity accounting for the percentage of each production method today and in the future. Adding the vehicle efficiencies creates the whole well-to-wheels picture.

In short, the California mix of well-to-tank hydrogen is more efficient than electricity, but less efficient than gasoline. When factoring in the vehicles’ tank-to-wheels efficiency, fuel cell and battery electric vehicles are just about equal, both coming in a 2-3 times as efficient as a combustion engine.

Read CARB’s reports at http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm