As European energy expert Samuel Furfari aptly puts it, green hydrogen is “like burning Louis Vuitton handbags for heat.” It’s an extravagant waste, especially in water-scarce Wyoming.
With federal subsidies pouring billions into clean energy hubs, states are lining up for projects like Wyoming’s Pronghorn Clean Hydrogen Center.
Let’s cut through the hype: Green hydrogen is a money pit that costs up to three times the energy to produce than it yields. That’s right — it costs double or triple the energy of the hydrogen made. It can’t handle the intermittency of wind and solar, and it worsens regional water scarcity. Wyoming taxpayers should demand a halt before more dollars vanish into this green financial nightmare.
First, the energy math is damning. Producing one kilogram of green hydrogen — about the same energy as a gallon of gas — via electrolysis requires 50 to 85 or more kilowatt-hours of electricity, yet yields just 33 kWh of usable energy.
That’s a whopping 1.5 to 2.5 net loss.
Factor in all inputs: harvesting and purifying water (10-13 times more water than hydrogen produced), cooling, splitting water with electricity, compression to 10,000 psi — triple an average scuba tank — chilling to near zero (minus 460 degrees for liquefaction), and storage losses to top it off.
Besides energy losses, the full costs for green hydrogen facilities like Pronghorn — including capital for electrolyzers, infrastructure ($1,000 to 2,000 per kW), labor, operations and maintenance — push costs to $5 to $8 per kg. The energy-equivalent gallon of gas costs less than $3.
Grey hydrogen from natural gas (abundant in Wyoming) costs around $2 per kg on an equivalent basis, with a steady supply and existing infrastructure. These hidden expenses make the Pronghorn project a bigger financial black hole for Wyoming taxpayers.
As one energy specialist notes, “Every time you involve hydrogen, you get not small losses but large, substantial losses.”
Why squander electricity on a fuel that devours more power than it delivers? The only reason is climate ideology. Because it doesn’t make any economic sense. And green hydrogen will not change future temperature one iota.
Worse, wind and solar — the backbone of green claims — can’t power these industrial behemoths. Green hydrogen electrolysis plants, like Pronghorn, need 24/7 operation to be economical. They can’t be flipped on and off like a light switch as the wind gusts or clouds roll in.
In Wyoming, wind generates power only 30 percent to 40 percent of the time, solar just 20 percent to 25 percent.
Projects like Wyoming’s Sidewinder Hydrogen Hub envision giga-scale facilities, but intermittency means they would be idle most of the time, further spiking costs.
Proponents tout storage, but using stored hydrogen to generate electricity for more hydrogen? That’s “second-generation” folly, additionally costing an additional 100 percent of the energy yielded, plus leaks and inefficiencies. It’s absurd.
Abundant natural gas provides a steady baseload without additional expense or water stress. Natural gas has a fully built-out infrastructure, ready demand, no need for subsidies, and pays taxes and royalties. None of this is true for green hydrogen.
Water scarcity seals the deal. Green hydrogen guzzles nine to 13 times as much pure water for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, requiring even more for cooling. In arid Wyoming, hydrogen production will compete with agriculture, communities and nature.
They will have to pay for water rights, too — another expense.
Infrastructure nightmares compound the waste. Hydrogen’s tiny molecules escape easily (10 percent storage loss), embrittle metals and risk explosions — remember the Hindenburg? We have zero dedicated pipelines; retrofitting costs billions, and it’s unsuitable for existing gas lines. It will destroy them through embrittlement. Remember, it has to be compressed to 10,000 psi and frozen.
Demand? Where is it? No mass market for hydrogen trucks or planes exists; it’s five times pricier than natural gas, ignoring extras. Big players like BP scrapped 18 projects to save $200 million, and Shell axed Norway ventures for lack of buyers. Australia’s $750 million plant? Canceled as a money-loser. Reasonable people are fleeing green hydrogen money pits.
Federal handouts — $9.5 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act — prop this up, adding to the $38 trillion debt and fueling inflation. Wyoming, rich in natural gas, should pivot to compressed natural gas: easier (stored at 3,500 psi vs. 10,000), no super-chilling, infrastructure-ready (1,500-plus stations), and convertible gas engines.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright nails it: Natural gas yes, hydrogen no. These states can’t afford dumb ideas mimicking Europe’s failures. Let’s kill the hubs.
Let markets decide; subsidizing green hydrogen is burning our future — just like burning Louis Vuitton bags. Wyomingites are smarter and more frugal than supporting this waste. Time to rise up and put a stop to this wasteful green folly.