The EV Political Problem And Why Hydrogen Might Have Been The Better Path

Hydrogen may have been a better path to mitigate climate change because, done right, it could have reduced or eliminated the obstacle that the petrochemical industry has become.

Both the GM and Rivian CEOs indicated that they were surprised that the move to EVs became political and were “saddened” that they did. But this outcome was always likely. The only real surprise was how long it took for EVs to be politicized. The reason is that the Petrochemical industry is very large, profitable, and engaged with various governments to ensure their continued survival and success. And EVs massively threatened that success because they use a non-petrochemical power source.

Therefore, if you wanted EVs to be successful fast, you needed to have a plan to either get the Petrochemical producers behind the EV program or eliminate their political power. The latter was done successfully in the US when Standard Oil (who once dominated the market) was broken up in 1911 as too powerful. However, two other paths were viable; one was to use science to mitigate the petrochemical pollution problem, which was initially implemented in the late 1960s with anti-emission technologies that have advanced and are still in use today. The other path, or the path not traveled, was to embrace hydrogen and fund the petrochemical industry by flipping from oil to hydrogen (or some other greener fuel source), making them part of the greener future.

Let’s talk about why Hydrogen could have been a better path than pure EVs. Be aware that I’m not arguing we should switch to Hydrogen now; I think we’ve gone too far down the EV path to switch.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has even more going for it than going to electric power. It can be used in converted gas engines, making conversion far less expensive than electric. It can use the existing gas infrastructure (though it would require changes in pumps and storage tanks, you’d still use gas stations). It does require special trucks to ship it, but it can also be generated locally at the gas station. It is abundant, but Hydrogen generators are expensive, making consumers much less likely to have one at home so the industry can profit from the Hydrogen. It doesn’t pull from oil, gas, or coal generators, which feed many EVs, so it is potentially far greener given the emissions are pure water.

The reason governments would have to subsidize the conversion to Hydrogen is that while you can use the exact logistics infrastructure in terms of people and sites (gas stations), you can’t use the same equipment and change out all of the tank trucks, storage tanks, pumps, etc. would be very expensive and an expense the petrochemical industry would likely fight unless that cost was mitigated by a government which, given how expensive it is, would seem unlikely. However, here in the US, we already do subsidize the industry. That subsidy could have been converted into more of a grant targeted at conversion rather than what it is today, which would have raised gas prices short term, and that typically isn’t good for re-election efforts.

So, with the proper focused funding, Hydrogen might have been able to flip the Petrochemical companies from being obstacles to green efforts to supporters, or at worst, neutral, making the early success of climate mitigation efforts more successful. But that path would have required massively more up-front funding that governments were unlikely to be able or willing to provide. At the same time, since most could be charged at home, EVs had a far easier implementation path even though their political path, as we now see, is far more complex.

Wrapping Up: Could AI Have Helped

One of the advantages to a good AI system is the lack of bias and the ability to simulate future events. With AI, the two paths, Hydrogen, and pure EV, could have been modeled with the full expenses and likely success (both practical and political) laid out.  Had this been done, the Hydrogen path would probably have been far more likely to have been funded, or, if not, an alternative path to mitigating the Petrochemical resistance to change could have been found.

AI’s best purpose is to help make better decisions, and while we are years away from full AI decision support once it is in place, assuming it isn’t compromised (which is a big assumption given the issues we are having with this technology hallucinating today), it is possible. These better decisions will eventually help us find a stronger, more sustainable path to the future.

Rob Enderle is a technology analyst at Torque News who covers automotive technology and battery development. You can learn more about Rob on Wikipedia and follow his articles on Forbes, X, and LinkedIn.