Charles Rotter
California’s hydrogen car experiment has entered a phase where the gap between expectation and experience is no longer subtle.
Drivers in Los Angeles recently waited in long lines to refuel. Some stations were offline. Others limited how much hydrogen could be dispensed. A network that exists comfortably in official counts became, under pressure, a small cluster of functioning pumps.
NBC Los Angeles described the situation in plain terms:
“Drivers are dealing with long lines… some stations are completely out, while others are limiting how much customers can fill.”
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hydrogen-gas-fuel-shortage-causing-long-lines-to-refuel/3874173/
That image—cars waiting, uncertainty at the pump—sits in sharp contrast to how this story began.
In 2004, California launched what was then framed as a transformative shift in transportation. The Hydrogen Highway initiative was introduced with sweeping confidence. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s executive order described the goal as:
“A network of hydrogen fueling stations… to support the widespread use of hydrogen-powered vehicles.”
https://www.library.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/4489-4492.pdf
The tone was unmistakable. Hydrogen was not being presented as experimental or uncertain. It was positioned as the next logical step.
That confidence extended into broader messaging at the time. State materials emphasized that hydrogen vehicles would deliver:
“the same performance and convenience as gasoline vehicles.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/clean-transportation-program
Convenience was central to the pitch. Fast refueling. Familiar habits. No behavioral adjustment required.
Two decades later, the language has shifted in subtle ways. The California Energy Commission still frames the effort as building:
“an initial network of 100 public hydrogen refueling stations.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/clean-transportation-program
“Initial” has stretched across multiple administrations, funding cycles, and technology iterations.
The spending, however, has been consistent:
“The Clean Transportation Program has allocated nearly $234 million for hydrogen infrastructure.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2025/joint-agency-staff-report-assembly-bill-126-2024-annual-assessment-hydrogen
That investment was intended to establish a functioning, reliable network. Operational data suggests a system still working toward that baseline.
A state assessment reported:
“42 hydrogen refueling stations were open… while 20 stations were offline for at least 30 days… many for over one year.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2025/joint-agency-staff-report-assembly-bill-126-2024-annual-assessment-hydrogen
And among those considered operational:
“Stations operated at an average capacity of 62 percent due to maintenance and hydrogen supply challenges.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2025/joint-agency-staff-report-assembly-bill-126-2024-annual-assessment-hydrogen
The original promise leaned heavily on reliability and ease of use. A refueling network that operates intermittently changes the entire ownership experience.
Forecasts have also moved. Expansion targets have been revised downward:
“The projected number of stations by 2027 has decreased from 175 to 130 due to the cancellation of planned developments.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2023/joint-agency-staff-report-assembly-bill-8-2023-annual-assessment-hydrogen-refueling
The market has not filled the gap. Vehicle adoption remains limited, reinforcing the difficulty of sustaining infrastructure.
Private industry has responded in kind. Shell exited California’s hydrogen station market, with reporting noting:
“Hydrogen demand has grown more slowly than anticipated, making it difficult for stations to achieve profitability.”
https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/021224-shell-permanently-closes-light-duty-hydrogen-fueling-stations
Fuel pricing has added further pressure:
“Retail hydrogen prices… reached a record high of $34.11 per kilogram.”
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/021224-shell-permanently-closes-light-duty-hydrogen-fueling-stations
Automakers have attempted to bridge that gap. Toyota has offered:
“Up to $15,000 of complimentary hydrogen fuel.”
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
Such incentives soften the cost for early adopters while underscoring how far the economics remain from equilibrium.
For drivers, the experience has diverged from the original messaging. Legal filings reflect that disconnect:
“Hydrogen refueling stations may be unavailable for days… refueling can take hours… fuel prices may increase significantly.”
https://www.classaction.org/media/caluwe-et-al-v-toyota-motor-sales-usa-inc-et-al_1.pdf
Technical reliability issues have compounded the situation. Industry disputes have produced blunt assessments:
“The technology was not ready for widespread commercial use, leading to frequent outages and performance issues.”
https://www.wired.com/story/the-norwegian-company-blamed-for-californias-hydrogen-car-woes/
Each of these details can be explained individually. Together, they describe a system that has not consistently delivered on its central promise: simple, dependable refueling.
The recent shortages bring that into focus. When supply tightens, the structure is tested immediately. Long lines and rationing are what drivers encounter when margins disappear.
The contrast with the original vision is difficult to ignore.
A system introduced as a seamless replacement for gasoline now asks drivers to monitor station status, plan routes around outages, and accept uncertainty at the pump. The promise of convenience has been replaced by a requirement for vigilance.
Policy support continues. Funding remains. Targets are revised and extended.
Consumers operate on a shorter feedback loop. They respond to what works today.
The image of drivers waiting in line in Los Angeles captures the current state of the hydrogen car more clearly than any projection. Years of ambition and investment condensed into a single, practical concern:
Is there fuel available—and how long will it take to get it?
The hydrogen car story also offers a broader lesson about large-scale energy planning. Ambitious programs tend to move forward on projections that assume technology, infrastructure, and consumer behavior will align on schedule. When even one of those variables lags, the strain shows up in places that cannot be managed with policy language—fuel availability, pricing, and day-to-day usability. Hydrogen was presented as a near-seamless evolution of the existing system. What has emerged is a reminder that complex systems resist being reshaped by timelines and targets alone, and that the distance between a promising concept and a dependable reality is often much longer than advertised.
H/T Gordon D
Driver: “Fill ‘er up!”
Attendant: “Here you go – two molecules of H2. For pedants and Democrat politicians, that counts as full.”
Hydrogen powered vehicles never made any sense at all. Likely just tax dollars being laundered through this scam to their friends.
So far the only alternative that makes sense outside of gasoline vehicles, is using electricity from natural gas turbines to power our industries and hybrid gas and/or electric cars. We literally waste/burn off the excess natural gas from producing Oil and auto fuel.
No one is surprised. Right. Right?
There were reportedly 5-6 hour wait times in queues for EV charging on the Easter weekend on the NSW coast.
The debate about cars often misses a basic point. People cite the many ways in which hydrogen or EV cars are inferior for current applications of ICE ones. They are usually right – refuel times are one of the key aspects. However, they miss something.
Governments can, and in many jurisdictions will, still go ahead and force a transition to EVs. Or indeed hydrogen. The thing that will then give is the application.
So you argue that long journeys become either much longer or even impractical. Yes, but that does not mean you will not have an EV. It means that if you want a car it will be an EV, and you will not make those long journeys. Similarly, you live in a city with no off-road parking and public charging points are insecure and expensive. Yes, but if you want a car in the city you will put up with that. This will lead to lower car ownership. Yes, and your government is fine with that. Similarly battery safety. Maybe they will be banned from underground parking. Yes, just means you will not be able to use them as you do now, so you will not drive to those places.
You have to turn it around to see what is coming. What is coming is a change in social and economic behavior, driven by the change from ICE to EV. Your government is not interested in whether you can carry on as before, or in whether it costs you more, or whether you like it.
Take the UK as an example. They are not going to repeal the Climate Change Act in the next four years, the move to EVs is going to happen, whatever the electorate thinks or wants. Starmer is going to stay in office, Miliband likewise. Or maybe Miliband will become Prime Minister. But the UK in 2030 is going to feel rather different than the UK today or a few years back.
Being unable to deliver reliable power, its going to move everyone to smart meters and variable rate electricity cost, so you will only use power when the weather gives plenty of it. You will drive an EV which will be charged either at expensive public charge points or at an expensive smart meter rate. Maybe that means you’ll change your mind about car ownership or use. That is fine.
Look at the former Soviet Union for an example. They had no power to make any changes, so they adapted to the requirements. Or Afghanistan – a recent piece in a UK paper about some visiting women records their surprise at being able to walk around casually outside. Governments possessed by the Net Zero mania will basically tell you to shut up and adjust. And you will have no choice.
Amazon is about to brick its old Kindles. You don’t like it? They are not interested in your feelings, live with it. That is just how it is,
Up to a point you are right. And Evs are not bad for intra urban or suburban use,
But when things go too far, especially if they do not in some other country, you start to jostle the politicians
Politicians mistakenly think that once elected they have supreme power.
But it ain’t so. Even in Russia or Iran leaders can be toppled.
Of course the French Revolution, the American Revolution, WWI, WWII, and a host of citizen-led revolutions in other countries over just the last 100 years—such as Portugal (1974), Iran (1979), the Philippines (1986), Romania (1989), and Tunisia (2011)—show that governments should fear the citizens just as much as some citizens in various nations fear their rulers.
Only two ‘eco’ technologies have ever made sense
Electric cars for short haul use for suburban homes with two cars and off street parking, and heat pumps for homes with sufficiently good grid connections and access to cheap nuclear power.
The rest have always been pie in the sky.
And the previous U.S. administration put out rule to require power plants to be powered by hydrogen. Just one such plant takes much more H2 than thousands of cars. Early tests had to be cut short because they ran out of H2.
Oh, and BTW, that H2 was supposed to be GREEN H2. Good luck with getting that.
From https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen-production ;
“Natural Gas Reforming/Gasification: Synthesis gas—a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a small amount of carbon dioxide—is created by reacting natural gas with high-temperature steam. The carbon monoxide is reacted with water to produce additional hydrogen. This method is the cheapest, most efficient, and most common {for producing hydrogen}. Natural gas reforming using steam accounts for the majority of hydrogen produced in the United States annually.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Once again, one just can’t escape the economics and practicality of using fossil fuels to meet the energy needs of the
USworld.This post is currently for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only and only ten comments!!!
Mr Watts is getting greedy.
I do not see the No Smoking sign.
Hindenburg, anyone?